Like it's frowned upon for us to use uh plastic water bottles now because we have you know our sustainability rules and we're putting like bottle filling stations when we remodel this building.

Is that the other one?

But this is your two-minute warning.

We will start in two minutes.

See what you're talking about.

Okay, uh, I think that's what we have to do with the meeting that's that's like a need to make a lot of the smaller versions.

Yeah, it's just like there's a picture of the picture.

Yeah, that's what we need to do.

One minute morning, please keep talking.

You don't want to sit in silence.

Carson's like church here though.

Like no one's in the front row.

Did you bite someone last time we had a meeting or something?

I did, I did.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

I once had a speaking engagement and everybody sat back like that and let's start it off by saying, I'm having trouble speaking.

If you could come to the front row, everybody moved to the front and then I started talking normally.

They were ticked.

Carson is five seconds.

Just do it.

Do it.

I'll call to order the Bozeman City Study Commission meeting of June eighteenth, twenty twenty-six, at five PM.

Five thirty PM.

If you're able, please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

We'll follow up with a moment of silence for which you may be seated if you like.

I played allegiance.

Thank you very much, and welcome everyone.

To this meeting, the primary subject of which is the tentative report and changes in the existing charter.

Um hopefully you all came prepared to give us some input or some thoughts or just to watch whatever uh whatever works.

First item on the second item on the agenda is changes to the agenda.

The one change we're gonna make since this is mostly a public hearing and mostly about us listening to you, is I'm gonna move public comment to right after we get rid of our uh regular business to consent agenda and correspondence or study commission update.

Then we'd dive right in and um we'll start our session then with a brief um summary of what we've done so far, and then um the floor is yours.

Uh there are some people online who will uh want to speak, no doubt as well.

And um I'm toying with the idea.

I want you to all think about it because we're talking about an entire document, actually, two documents.

Should we expand the time from three minutes to four minutes or five?

And that would depend partly on how many people are gonna uh talk.

Um, so um sort of have in mind what you think is right, and I'll probably do a quick poll at the last minute uh before we start.

I'm thinking right now I'm thinking four minutes um would do the job for everybody, and um we'll go from there.

All right, consent agenda.

Is there any public comment on the consent agenda?

Good.

Carson, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

I'll second.

It's been moved and seconded.

All those in favor, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Next item on the agenda is correspondence or study commission update.

This is when we talk about um conversations or whatever that we've had with the public media in some fashion or another, or things that we've taken on as um responsibilities, and just to report back to us.

So does anybody have anything under correspondence or study commission updates?

Start with Becky.

Yeah, the uh League of Women Voters has offered to do an information session for us on September 29th from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

It's been booked here in this room.

Uh, and so uh more details will be coming forward for that as a way for uh voter education.

What date is that?

September 29th.

It's a Tuesday, and it's the fifth Tuesday of the month, so there is no city commission meeting.

Perfect.

That's where the room's available.

And we used to have name tags so you knew who was talking.

Um, they disappeared from the face of the earth sometime in the last uh several months.

My name is Carson Taylor, and I'm gonna ask each of you when you speak to identify yourself.

This was I'm Becky Franks.

And then Jan.

Hi, I'm Jan Stroud, and I do have a few comments, and part of it is to say that because Becky and I were in the same time zone at the same time, then we were able to have a very helpful, I I have heard, um, guest column that appeared earlier this week.

And in doing that, I also want to thank for the record, Jeff Walsh, who is then the editor of the Boseman Daily Chronicle.

He is leaving at the end of this week, and he has said yes to every one of us that we have worked with to try to bring out as many guest columns and opportunities to educate the community.

So I wanted that on the record.

I also just wanted to say thanks to the staff here for making sure we had our refreshments and getting everything here on time.

Um, and we're so glad to see so many of you.

And I know many of you you've heard from me, 25 groups did.

Um, and then we had one other opportunity for the media with Carson and I had a chance to be interviewed by the ABC Fox News folks on Monday, and that also had a wide distribution.

So it feels like we've really been making progress, and your participation, all of you here today, I think is a reflection of that.

We deeply appreciate it.

Thank you, Deanna.

Thank you.

Uh Deanna Campbell.

I'm glad to be here.

I'm happy to see so many of you.

Thanks for coming.

Barbara.

I'm Barb Sistero, and I just wanted to Becky and I are scheduled to speak to the Valley West Neighborhood Association on July 27th.

You'll recall they had reached out and asked um for us to come talk to them at their next meeting.

So that's been scheduled.

Great.

Mike?

I'm Mike Moss, the ex officio, and I have nothing to report for this meeting.

Great.

One other thing that we had, Deanna.

You were going to talk to the finance department about item 6.09, which involved auditing and a potential waiver by vote of the commission, which we cut out pending information as to why it was in there.

Did you have that chance other than the conversation we had with Mike, which we can just report?

I have nothing to report, but I will bring that to the next meeting.

Okay.

And the question had to do with why you would have an exception on audits.

Do you want to elucidate a little bit on that for us?

Yeah, so the uh the State Department of Administration has a roster of audit firms that are authorized to report city audits in the past that has not been a very lengthy roster, especially for the larger communities.

So my assumption, and we'd have to uh look into it more detail that that was why the uh exception was put in there.

Okay, well, we'll get to it at a later time.

Thank you.

Anything else?

All right, so the the idea here is please come to the microphone, state your name, your address, and tell us what you think of the work that we've done so far.

Please feel free to be critical, kind but critical.

Um and um hopefully we will catch whether their trends certainly from the written comment that we've gotten so far.

There are some trends that are out there of things that people are looking at and going, I'm not not sure I understand what that means.

And if if at this point there are things that we're writing in our amended charter or otherwise that are not clear, we need to know that.

Um similarly, something you that we've done that you disagree with.

We are going to operate under our bylaws a little bit like the way the state legislature does, which means um we if we get to ask you questions, that doesn't mean you have to answer, but it we do get to ask you questions, um, so that we're clear that we understand what you're what you're saying, and um that's really important to us, and I think it's important to good government.

So I think the way to do this is we'll take five people's comments, uh we'll ask you to stay around at least for uh each group of five in case there's a question, then we'll do questions if there are any of any of the people who have spoken, then we'll move on to the next five.

So um, I don't know, it's four minutes the right amount of time.

If you think you can do everything you need to do in four minutes, raise your hand.

Carson, could I make a quick suggestion?

Okay, sure.

Um, I'm wondering if it would be helpful to divide the comments into the report itself and then the amended um charter, if that would be helpful to us to have a better way of tracking them as well as doing it, and and then keep it to three or four minutes each.

But if you want to put them all together, go ahead, of course.

Um I'm thinking people come up and one is one thing, and who knows how you separate it in your mind.

Sure.

Okay.

Do you want me to give a summary before we start?

We do.

So we're gonna start with Becky giving a summary of uh our work, and then um the most efficient way to do this is if you're in the front row, then you don't have to walk all the way from the back.

So if you wanted to move up because you wanted to talk, that it wouldn't displease us.

Becky.

Thank you everybody for being here tonight for our um official public hearing.

Uh this is something that we want to do, but also something that's mandated by the MCA under this uh the role of the study commission.

So this is our second required public hearing.

Um, on the table, make sure that you have received the report and the charter, and um the the new the amended charter is in the report as well.

So there's that.

When you think about the last year and a half, we started working to study the city government and to look at the charter to see what kind of things we could change that would allow us to bring it to the voters in the attempt to improve the way our government functions.

We can remember that we're not, we can't put in any policies, we can't do any ordinances.

This is really kind of like the bylaws of the city.

And what these documents you're seeing now is a culmination of that.

There are some key things that we're gonna be looking at, but I do want to direct your attention to the very front of the report.

Because while this document is super long, and thank you, Barb, for uh Barbara and I worked to write and try to record the wishes of the commission, those first couple pages are critical.

You've got the letter to the residents of the city of Bozeman.

That helps you understand all the things we did to try to gather input from the public as well as what we studied and how we went about trying to learn about the charter and the opportunities that we had available to us.

When you look at the second page, you've got the report summary, and in there we can see the key findings one through four, followed by the key provisions of the proposal, and that gives you a really high level overview of the types of the key things that we're looking to change.

Some of the things we've changed are basically to improve the readability of the charter, which has been important.

It was well written, but it wasn't since 2006, and so we did change some of the readability of the charter to make sure that the public can understand it because that's important.

When we look at the key provisions of the proposal, I'm going to very briefly run over those because they are in writing there for you.

First of all, the election of the mayor.

We're offering the idea that the mayor now have a four-year term and that we eliminate the deputy mayor position.

The second one is that the mayor, the commissioner and mayor uh compensation would be discussed by a compensation board, and that they would make decisions regarding the compensation of the mayor and the commission.

With the city commission vacancy, we have lengthened the time of uh filling those seats from 30 days to 60 days, and require that the commissioners hold a public hearing with the candidates that are running so that they can get public input, which would be an improvement from.

Well, if you want public input, it would include more time for public input.

Number four is the three branches of government government.

We now took the municipal court out of the personnel section and made it its own article.

I think number five is our biggest change.

We added an article eight, both the um city boards and the neighborhood associations were tucked up under another um article.

And if there's one thing that we heard probably the most is as a as the public, we don't feel heard, we don't feel seen, we don't feel like we have an opportunity to participate.

And we also led with some great concern that only 28% of the neighborhoods are or that the public is represented in a neighborhood association.

There's no need to really argue that number, it just is a number, but uh there's plenty of people, plenty of people aren't in a neighborhood association.

So we'll just kind of leave it at that.

So in there is all about public engagement, and that's what's called the public engagement article eight, and in there we have gotten a lot of input from public comment and also working directly with the neighborhood associations and the Inc.

to be able to excuse me, the inner neighborhood council to be able to try to write that in a meaningful way.

Um number seven, it explains the ballot, and it is important to understand.

So we've got this report that explains the ballot, and then we've got the charter, and how it works is we've got an existing charter from 2006, and we've got this amended charter that will come out for a vote on November 3rd of 2026.

If we've all if the public votes for the amended charter, then that opens the door for the three sub-options to take hold.

So they're giving me three sub-options.

One says should we vote in wards?

Or should we continue just to vote where commissioners can live wherever they want?

The second is if we do vote in wards, should those commissioners have to live in their neighborhood.

I mean, they have to live in the neighborhood, but should they only be voted on the people, the residents who live in their neighborhood?

Or should those uh commissioners be um voted at large, like the county does.

And then the third suboption is do we want to continue to have four commissioners and a mayor or six commissioners and a mayor?

If those sub-options pass, but the amended charter does not pass, it all fails.

So there's that.

We don't make that up, the MCA made that up.

So that's just kind of how it works.

I'll say that one more time.

If the three sub-options pass, or any of the suboptions pass, but the amended charter fails, the whole thing fails.

Okay, so that's really important.

If you have passed that to your neighbors, because that's gonna be hard to understand, but that's kind of the deal.

And then finally, number eight.

Um the charter is a legal binding document for the next 10 years.

There are ways to change it in between, but it's it's difficult, and so it's the document that sits.

However, the study commission has worked collectively to develop recommendations to the city commission.

These are written in your report, not in the charter, but they're in the report in exhibit.

F.

And so um in exhibit F you'll have those recommendations.

These are things that literally the recommendations, it's kind of like when you recommend that your teenager would clean his room.

It's not gonna happen, or it could happen, it's hard to know.

And so these recommendations will go to the city city commission.

Should um and then they can do that, or they cannot do them.

So that's kind of how that works.

So that's kind of the summary of the situation, and from there, I think we're ready to take public comment and thank you for being here.

All right, who wants to start?

Oh my god, we're gonna start with the city manager.

Good evening, uh, study commissioner.

I am Chuck Wynn.

I'm the present city manager and Bozeman, and first of all, I just want to thank you for all your hard work.

I want to thank you for your very thoughtful um deliberations.

I know you haven't all agreed on everything, but I think you've had conversations that are civil and have resulted in a better outcome.

So it's clear that a lot of thought and effort has gone into this draft document, and again, I commend you for that, and uh we fully recognize your independence and autonomy, and we want to be helpful from our perspective or from my perspective.

So my comments tonight are related to my experience in city administration and experience with the charter and experience with city policy.

So the question that I ask myself, and the question that I'm asking asking you, is to um be really clear and intentional about what goes in a charter versus what goes in a policy document.

And uh I could tell you that um my teenage daughter um did not stay in a room if it was a suggestion.

So, what belongs in a charter?

Items that are fundamental and enduring, items that are difficult to change, related to governance and authority, and important enough to require voter voter or governing body approval to modify.

I think we can all agree on that.

So things like the form of government, powers of elected officials, creation of boards and commissions, budget adoption requirements, election procedures, ethics provisions, those are the kind of things.

What should not be in a charter is administrative details, operational details, technical details, or things that are likely to change over time, or things better handled by management.

So examples of those things might be personnel policies, purchasing thresholds, detailed budgeting procedures, operational charts below the department level, those kind of things.

So a rule of thumb is charter is what and who.

A policy is how.

Yeah, 2.04 commission compensation.

Thank you.

I think that is an example of um being too uh prescriptive.

And I think there's a concern amongst our professional staff that using the language that's in the charter, uh, elected officials might become employees, employees that are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees that are subject to wage an hour, and we would have to report their compensation in a way that uh changes over time or that um um selects a direction of compensation or employee rules based on the Fair Labor Standards Act.

So we'll present more detail on that.

Um, uh another example is Section 303, the designation of an acting city manager.

We already do that with the language that is in there right now.

It's gonna take formal action as opposed to just an email to the commission and the staff that uh the city managers out of town.

Um also calling out current industry standards, it may change over time.

For instance, the govern um government finance officer association is the government accounting uh best practices.

Uh, the GA GAS, those things are listed in the charter and they may change.

Um also Section 8.04, um, there are some concerns that the charter language, and I know that the charter is a reaction to public comment, and the changes to the charter are reactions to public comment.

That is important, that is right, and that is good.

The language is currently that's in there though, sets up inc to have more status than other advisory boards with none of the requirements of the other advisory boards.

So for city advisory boards, most of the language is may, for inc, it is shall.

It also requires a full-time staff member, which is has budgetary considerations.

Um there are other things that we believe conflict with NLUPA, and I know that the um this the current city commission, the current local government study commission wants to increase public engagement.

We are working on that, and I think we've made some important progress.

However, we are subject to NLUPA, and we want to make sure that the charter does not conflict with the laws that have been adopted by the state of Montana, and they're very specific about public participation in that world.

So I will stop there.

Mike, you should have started the timer on me because I tend to talk too long.

But anyways, very much appreciate your work, very much appreciate this uh draft, and uh we look forward to um answering any questions that the local government study commission has or uh and and the opportunity to provide some specific public comment.

And Chuck, could you wait around for questions?

I yeah, for a few minutes, I certainly can.

Thank you.

Who's next?

And we're gonna do a four-minute time.

If that if that's all right, Caleb, can you do it?

Yeah.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

My name is Noah Tembruck, and I live in Bozeman.

I was just gonna listen, but then I thought I'd comment as well.

So first things first, uh I feel like the voters of Bozeman um voted you guys in as a result, uh, sort of as a rebuke of the current way that the city is run.

And a few of the big ticket items that I'm concerned about where I feel like not enough has been done is the appointment process.

And I would invite all of you to go home and watch the appointment of Emma Bodie.

Just watch how it's done, because then you'll know that it feels fundamentally flawed.

And there's a lot of creative ways to solve this.

I don't have the expertise legally to understand how to go about it.

But the last thing we want to do is to continue to let sort of establishment individuals re-elect their own.

And um, and it's just super disappointing to see that we've come two years later, and this was one of the big ticket items for the community, and we've extended it from 30 to 60 days.

Another thing is I'd like to see, and I I wish I was more involved, but I was out of town.

Uh I'd like to see uh more teeth.

Uh something in the city that actually goes head to toe with the state, like like head on head with the state.

Uh there's all these defaults like MLUPA or whatever, the state does this, the state does that, and then we just sort of sit back like lame ducks.

We need to find a more aggressive way to fight for what's ours in this community.

Um, I'm kind of sick and tired of hearing slates that are against sort of ink in one way or another.

I feel like there's been a lot of throwing rocks and hiding hands.

And um, it takes a village.

That's what we are.

We are a village.

It takes all of us together, and that's what your charter is about.

It's finding a way to get all of us in together.

And I feel like the language sets up sort of the administrative procedures in such a way that it allows for the city and the staff to have more control than the public during crisis moments in our community.

And I believe that they do have the expertise to help us through, but there's two cultures.

There's the public and then there's the city, and nothing has been done to shore that up yet.

Not I mean, there's a lot of attempts, but I I just feel like there's a there's a misrepresentation there.

Um 28% of people are represented by neighborhoods.

Let me give you guys another fact.

73% of Bozeman is protected by CCRs.

Right?

So by covenants conditions and restrictions, which prevent them from having density, affordability mandates, etc.

So maybe it's not, you know, maybe it's not a coincidence that only 28% of people are represented by the by neighborhoods.

It's because everybody else is sitting comfortably in their HOAs.

Um so instead of marginalizing the people that show up, we need to strengthen them.

And I think getting a staff member, a full-time paid staff member is great.

The Inc.

was the only board that was written into the charter, I believe.

Let's keep it that way.

I think it's truly representative of the roots of this community, and we can do better in in empowering those folks to use the hierarchy that's in place to make the decisions that we need to make to make this community better.

So um we're all watching very carefully what happens to the Inc.

and um how that language shifts and drifts.

And I just hope that uh we recognize that it takes a village and that we empower our village through the charter language.

So thank you all for your incredible hard work.

I know it's not easy, and um, have a good night.

Thank you, Noah.

Noah, can you stick around a little longer?

Yes, thank you.

I'm glad I heard the city manager, because now I now I'm what ready to speak.

Susan Hinkins.

Um I've lived in Bozeman since 1971.

I'm in uh live on Graf Street.

Um I had two comments I want to make.

One was that one of the things I like best about the new charter was the discussion of the neighborhood association.

And I would say I'm a member of a neighbor of a neighborhood association, and it's my best source of information about what the city is doing, and it also provides a forum for discussion in the neighborhood before we come to a city commission meeting.

Um I now do live in a condo, which HOA, but I still care what happens in downtown Bozeman.

And so I think promoting neighborhood I would be happy to be in a I'm still in one because I own the house in my old neighborhood.

I'd like to be in a neighborhood association in my condominium.

There are a lot of things we're interested in.

So I apparently there are some technical difficulties with that, but neighborhood associations have been really useful for me.

The issue I had was with the compensation, and I was really happy to hear the city manager talk because when I read that, I thought, oh, I really like your change of who decides the compensation, that the board includes residents and the CFO, but the algorithm made me uncomfortable.

It did seem too precise and actually ill defined.

There isn't just one measure of the medium income.

And so I also I would have preferred that it kept the old charter language, which was you have this board and it's their job to figure out the salaries.

And thank you all for all your hard work.

Thank you, Susan.

And you're gonna stick around a little bit for more questions in case we have any.

Thank you.

All right, good evening.

I'm Emily Mason, recently elected chair of the City of Bozeman's Inner Neighborhood Council.

I'm also the chair of the Figgins Edition Neighborhood Association.

I live on Westridge Drive.

First, I know this is a bit unorthodox, but yesterday's tragic event really moved me.

And I just would like us all to take a moment to pray for all those involved in yesterday's accident, including our first responders.

We as a community hold them all in our hearts and pray for their peace and comfort.

All right.

On behalf of the Interneighborhood Council, I would like to thank the government study commission for keeping and strengthening the section about neighborhood associations and the interneighborhood council and Article 8 of the draft amended charter.

Because neighborhood associations and the interneighborhood council are essential to a well-functioning local government and robust democracy, their role should be protected in the charter to ensure their continuity and independence from changing political and administrative priorities.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Thank you, Emily.

And yes, I'll stick around.

Good.

All right, that's five.

So are there any questions of any of the five people?

Becky, then Jan.

Uh I have actually uh one question and one just clarifying comment.

Um Chuck, thank you for your comments.

When you um and everybody, if you send in public comments with your with your comments, we're at a point now uh that I we need you to include what would you like it to say?

Don't just say I don't like it that way.

We need to know specifically what would you like it to say, and then we can take that into consideration because our time is tick-tock.

And then this um for Noah, I just want to let you know that um when we moved it from this 30 to 60 days, there were so many limitations in the MCA on filling vacancies that that was really the most we could do at this point.

And if anybody doesn't like how the state works with cities, uh head on up to Helen on January 2027.

Can I respond?

May I respond?

I think so because we see this as a question and answer, and that wasn't a question, but go ahead, Noah.

You gotta come to the microphone, though.

Yeah, we we struggled with a bunch of opportunities and options, but that was what the MCA allowed us to do.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

And so uh does it state that the city commission has to make the decision?

Yes.

So it's the body of the city commission.

And we're not allowed to do a special ballot election.

Okay, and does it also state that out of good faith the city commission can weigh in chairs of other boards to each maybe submit their preferred candidate?

No.

I mean, I'm just asking to be creative here.

That's what we need.

Um, and and I I feel like, like again, I really want you guys to watch that video.

Okay.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And we should be a little wary of making comments.

This is we're asking questions of the people that gave testimony.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Jan?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thanks, everybody.

Um, Chuck, I wanted to get back and ask you a question, particularly around appreciated all of your comments and a lot of good food for thought from everybody.

Uh, but with respect to the public engagement, I somehow maybe either thought or misheard that there are some violations of state legislation around that area of our charter, or there are examples where we could be in trouble with the state legislature who is interested in more control, I would put it that way of our communities.

So did I misunderstand that, or what would be some of the concerns you have further outside of the neighborhood that you gave examples with the public engagement section?

So Chris Saunders, I believe, came and spoke to you earlier.

He made some specific uh recommendations that that he did not see included in this draft.

So we want to make those recommendations again.

And now that I'm up here, I want to I want to clarify my comments about Inc.

So I've worked for the city of Bozeman for 20 or 42 years, and my favorite time in my career was when I was the acting neighborhood coordinator.

I love Inc.

I think it is it is um one of the most important and unique things this city does.

And yes, we should strengthen it, absolutely.

It has always been a coalition of the willing.

Anybody can organize into a neighborhood.

And we have 15 groups right now that have they come they compromise inc, and then there are three more neighborhoods that are.

So we've never had a um that are in the process of that.

We have never had a limit on the number of neighborhoods.

What it takes is motivated neighbors to get together and follow the requirements to do so.

So I in my seat want to make it easier for our neighbors to do that.

I also understand and support the importance of our advisory boards, and our advisory boards have certain requirements for expertise on those environments.

They have um on those um seats, they also have um rules for um minutes and public disclosure, public um participation.

Inc doesn't have those same requirements right now.

So I think for the study commission to consider those same kind of requirements because I think um all of those boards are critical, and ink is critical, so it's not either or, in my estimate, in my idea in my uh comments here, it's both.

So stop there unless there are other further questions.

I think we should change the format.

Let's everybody ask questions of Chuck while he's up there.

And then no, I'm gonna ask you to come back up and finish you off and then go from there.

Um, I just wondered if I could follow up, Chuck, on that.

And it would be that um do you see then given the very helpful how what we're opening of this, would you see those kinds of instructions, those kinds of requirements of ink being appropriate for the actual charter?

Or are we to recommend them in an ordinance or a resolution?

Um well, I mean the overall answer is yes, I think that that we should define and clarify the role of Inc.

I think that um I don't know what how many of the details should be in the charter versus how many of the details should be up to Inc.

and the current city commission.

And um I think, well, I don't think I know that our current city commission is very interested in engagement, and they have been elected by the public.

So to think that um, you know, the public hasn't had its say in the governance of our city, I think sometimes is disingenuous.

The voters elected every single person that sits on the city commission and the voters have all elected you.

So there's a lot of public voice and public will that has been um bestowed upon you and has been bestowed upon the city commission.

I am the one employee of the city commission, and if I'm not doing the will of the city commission, then I can easily be replaced.

So I think there is accountability.

There was a comment I heard earlier about the elected officials are accountable to the community and the employees are not.

Deanna.

Yeah, Chuck, uh, in your experience with boards, uh, we currently uh have members on boards that um have contractual agreements with the city that receive grants from the city and um clearly have conflicts of interest.

And um, do you feel um uh that the because I've never seen any ethics uh claims or ethics movements made um about these kinds of conflicts of interest, and would it not be good to um to limit membership to advisory boards to people who do not have obvious conflicts of interest on face value, yes.

Um we do have a robust ethics program, uh ethics commission, uh, who does not receive many if any complaints.

So I think we are a very ethical organization.

Or else I'm what's that or else unreported.

I'm sorry.

No, that's fine.

I I think that that um we do have um board members, we have city commissioners that recuse themselves when they have conflicts of interest.

So I don't think I don't see that as a as a uh huge problem right now.

We're also a small community, and the people who are interested and have special um subject matter knowledge um are often the ones who volunteer and who are chosen for um roles on the boards too.

So it's not it's not uh strange or unique that we would have people on our boards who also have a private interest in certain things that the board may discuss, but I think we have a robust ethics program that requires uh disclosure, requires them to recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest.

I know our city attorney gets um convert um gets requests all the time from sitting commissioners and sitting board members who say this is what I do.

Is this a conflict of interest under Montana statute or city of Bozeman regulations?

And he gives them their advice.

If there was a problem, uh overriding problem, I think that you would see more reporting and more challenges to our ethics uh our ethics commission.

Other questions of Chuck?

I have one.

Sure.

Um, there's two.

Oh, Barbara, you had one?

I'm sorry.

Please go ahead.

You raised your hand below your screen.

No, I did this.

You blanked, you but um first I just want to make sure I heard you right that you are gonna be providing robust written comments that we're identifying specific sections.

Great.

Um, because um your comment about section 3.03 struck me, and and I'm um since that was just part of the existing charter that we carried forward, am I understanding you correctly that that you think that that by putting it in the charter, it requires more formal action that's cumbersome in the daily practice of you going on vacation?

Like, am I understanding that?

Yeah, without any added benefit or um you know purpose?

I suggested is to just take it out.

Um the compensation piece was intended to follow pretty much what the county does.

And with maybe a little more space.

Some of them do other things as well.

When I was on the commission, and what I hear from people that are on the commission now, it's very hard to make ends meet if you get paid what they're getting paid now.

For 20 years, we had a system that allowed the city commissioners to set their own wages, albeit they had to wait two years to do it.

So how do we remedy the problem if we don't do it the way we're doing it?

Obviously, there's several pieces to this that could be changed, but we set it up with the idea of let's create a standard that's reasonable for a full-time job, and then let's figure out how much work the commissioners and the mayor are doing and pay them accordingly.

Um would you rather we just pay everybody the same the county commissioners get?

I that that's up to um people with uh a lot more authority than I have.

I um didn't mean to uh sound like object to a compensation committee.

I think that's a great idea.

I think the specific things were for to specifically spell out the AMI of a household of four to um talk about the average work done, the average amount of hours a commissioner spends um per week on their job to to actually talk about hours, I think, then does uh transcend over into the um the area of employees, and I don't think uh our city commissioners should be employees.

I think they're elected officials, and I think that's a really important and critical distinction.

So those specific things about a certain percentage of AMI, a size of a family, like one should, you know, why four?

There's single people, there's married people, there's so those kind of prescriptive things is what I was referring to, not the compensation committee or compensation.

Are county commissioners' employees?

Do you know?

I don't believe they don't have hours set.

So they don't talk about how many hours they work, they have no requirements to be in the office for a certain amount of time.

If you got rid of the hours ratio and just did a ratio of sort of percentage of full time, would that work?

I don't know.

That's not the the concept was not that you would go hours and ex, but you'd have a sense of what the expectation was, that would create a percentage, and that compared to the AMI, would be where you got the number from, and they would all be treated as salaried employees, salaried people anyway, meaning no one's counting their hours uh in any by any stretch of the imagination.

And I my comments were my comments.

I didn't mean to get into you know, should or shouldn't you?

I just want to make sure that this commission understood the concerns about um wage and hour laws, the fair labor standards act, and how our elected officials who should be autonomous and not employees um would be treated.

Cool.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I have a question of Noah, and you don't have to come up for it.

What was the percentage of people in the city that have CCRs?

73.

73?

That's what he's doing.

Wow.

You have the 28 to it, that shows you why so little.

People are involved in the neighborhoods potentially because they already have already self-governing entities.

Understood.

Thank you.

Any other questions of Noah?

Any questions of any of the other people?

Emily, Susan.

That's it.

I thought there was a fifth.

Did I miscount.

Yeah, you did.

All right.

Carson, will we just do one speaker and then if we have questions each time?

I'm trying to figure out an efficient way to do it.

But yeah, I think let's try it that way.

Okay.

All right.

Next speaker, please step forward.

Name address, four minutes.

And for those of you who just got here in the charter and the reporter on the table.

Greetings, Mark Campanelli.

I'm a Booger Park resident.

I am the president and grep for Bogert Park Neighborhood Association, but I speak for myself.

I made written comment concerning neighborhood associations and other ways of doing engagement other than the neighborhood associations, which I do support.

Obviously, I want to keep them in the charter.

So instead, I actually had a couple items quickly just to address in that that I didn't talk about in my comments.

In 8.04 C the city liaison, you guys don't call out increasing the coverage of the city's neighborhoods in there.

That gets called out as only working with ink.

And I just thought it might be nice if the person did that independently, even from ink.

So something to think about.

I think it's anyways.

Hopefully you can figure out.

I'm happy to talk to you more about this later.

I don't want to burn up my time on these.

And then the other thing, which I mentioned before in section 8.0.2, it says these governmental structures may include but are not limited to neighborhood associations.

But again, later on in the document, you say shall include neighborhood associations.

So I feel like that's a little bit contradictory, and I'm worried that that will become a bone of contention.

Okay.

So I'm gonna step back with a little bit more reflection, and those are gonna be my comments now.

You know, when I was um my first job I really had was in a national laboratory.

Or sorry, was it it was nationally funded.

Yeah, it was a national laboratory.

It's actually split into two pieces.

But anyways, I digress.

Um, and I would work with the IT guys, um, because I was doing some coding and Windows NT, I'm gonna date myself came out, and um there was this difference between Windows file permissions and Unix Unix uh file permissions.

Sorry, I need some water.

And turns out the windows would always give you all the permissions, and that caused a ton of security problems.

Whereas Unix, you always had to go in and grant permissions to go to change a file.

So it was this whole idea of sharing, right, which was kind of big at the time coming out as computers are getting bigger.

So, with that in mind, I'm gonna read a couple of our amendments to our constitution.

Uh, the ninth amendment I believe here is the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights.

Thank you so much.

The enumeration and the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And then the Tenth Amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So we have two amendments to our constitution that really talk about limited government and retaining rights to the people.

And as I look at, well, as I've seen how the city has functioned, and I just feel like the city gets way ahead out way ahead of their skis on so many things, trying to do so many things, right?

And to promote the general welfare, I do believe, um, and that is kind of the crux here.

What is the general welfare?

But when I read the um, you know, powers of the city, the city exercises legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and then they retain everything that's not put into the state constitution, right?

And then how do I even figure out what that is?

I'd have to go read the state constitution.

Very, very liberal with broad three uh branch powers, right?

So then you read down into 1.02 powers.

You know, again, they say these shall be construed liberally um in favor of the city.

It doesn't say the people there, right?

So I know um sort of classic conservative libertarian views are very, very unpopular and probably very unpopular in a progressive city.

I just think it brings sanity, and I've realized that limited government brings sanity to democracy, and it makes it actually function better.

And I just wanted to leave you guys with that idea.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark.

Thank you for the water.

Oh, sorry.

Okay, thank you.

One of the things we don't do is clap or cheer for people because what happens is it tends to dissuade people with differing points of view from coming up, and uh, it's a natural tendency to want to clap for someone or cheer for them or whatever, but we do ask people to uh respect the fact that there may be different points of view, and that we don't want to um dissuade anybody from standing up because um the mood of the crowd seems to be greater.

And I realize there was just one person clapping there, but suppose all but one clapped, and that one person might fear getting up.

So that's why we make that rule.

Thank you.

Uh Daniel Cardi, Bozeman resident at 213 North Third.

Um, couple of comments.

First, I'd like to voice my support for Article 8.

Um, especially I like to comment on section 8.04 in support of neighborhood associations and Inc.

Um Inc.

is a slightly different animal than the city's other advisory boards.

The city's other advisory boards operate under resolution 5323.

Inc.

does not.

And so that's an important distinction.

Actually, the city commission, um, sometime this summer is actually gonna talk about its other advisory boards other than Inc.

That's up to them.

Inc.

is for the people of Bozeman.

Um, also in A.04C.

I support a full-time city staff member working with neighborhood associations and with so that should be a line item in the budget.

My second comment is on section 2.04, compensation and expenses.

Um currently the language reads that the uh compensation board, which I'm certainly in favor of, um, should be include two commissioners, the city's CFO and four residents who are registered voters and live full-time within the city.

Um, I disagree with this.

I think that the language should be amended to read that no elected city officials, no city employees, or anyone with a direct financial interest in city contracts or city finances can be a member of the compensation board.

This will make the compensation board, um, to be comprised of disinterested parties who potentially could submit their uh you know applications to the city to be selected by random lottery.

Um also I think they need to be uh Bozeman residents whose primary residents is within city limits, and who are registered to vote within city limits.

Um to determine annual compensation.

I think that the current language is too prescriptive and support um a written comment supported on 615 by Natsuki Nakamura, which the language would be the compensation board shall convene annually to assess and determine compensation for commissioners and the mayor for subsequent fiscal year, taking into consideration the most recent AMI or some other measure of salaries like teachers or police or fire and Bozeman, um, so that it couldn't be tagged to something that actually is meaningful within Bozeman.

And those are all the all the comments that I have.

Thank you, Dan.

Any questions, Dan?

What was the date on that public comment from Montesuki?

So it was submitted on 615 26, a written comment.

Other questions of Dan?

Deanna.

Dan, did you put some of your uh this language in your written comment?

Yes, the one I submitted this morning.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Jen.

Dan, thank you.

Um fascinating.

And I'm wondering in terms of the disinterested parties who have, of course, important requirements to at least live in the city full time and be registered voters.

But then you talk about a lottery to be able to pick from these disinterested people.

Do you have anything else to offer that might allow for the competence and the uh expertise that I think we need on this board, but also um how do you find something that might not be so random?

Well, when the city um has applications for advisory board members, so there's a list of questions that could certainly be developed for disinterested parties.

Um I think someone certainly the city could review those for minimum qualifications, but beyond that, a random lottery might be the most fair way to do it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dan.

Mary Bateson, uh Bozeman resident at 427 North Tracy Avenue.

Um may I start with a question, and that is, is exhibit F the recommendations for the study commission, something that the uh study commission will give to the Commission, the City Commission, and does not uh is not changed by voter outcome.

That's correct.

So my suggestion is based on the fact that you guys have done a great job, and I think that a lot of your recommendations or a lot of the recommended changes to the charter are really important, that what you might consider is what happens if this fails.

If it fails, I think that your recommended changes should be included as recommendations to the city to consider whether they're in the charter or not, and so if you went through your um proposed charter, and figure out what are all the changes which you've done, add those to your recommendations as things that the city can consider to do if this thing fails.

Thank you.

Yeah, questions of Mary.

Probably not.

It's an interesting concept.

My worry is if it fails, yeah.

Particularly the suboptions, no commissioner is gonna change what the sub-options were.

It can't be directly voted.

I think what I'm getting from you is an interesting concept, which is it may fail, um, even though it has 10 really good ideas in it.

Right.

One that was bad enough that it caused it to go down.

Hopefully, that wouldn't be what happened.

But um, that's that's what you're saying.

Yeah, that recommend those recommendations.

The issue is that there are quite a number of changes included in your charter.

And there may be quite a there might be quite a lot of um misunderstanding and twisting of the intentions.

I mean, who knows what the voters could decide and what parts of the charter are going to be the thing that makes people say forget it this is too much I don't want to see these changes at all because I don't like this one thing yeah sure there might be nine things that I like but not this one thing and so I I just think it's a way to you know point out the most important things and include them as recommendations you've got good recommendations already that you didn't include in the charter but you may I mean just think about it because those the recommendations are are just things for the city to think about and I I worry that because the the number of changes you have included in this might be a problem thank you so thank you.

Any other questions of Mary good evening my name is Esther Fishbaugh I live at 1380 Wolverine Lane outside of the city limits I'm a property owner at 2200 West Dickerson and I don't get to vote even though the decisions you make well the decision the commission makes affects my taxes and I do pay taxes but I have no say in how they're spent which I think is a disservice but that wasn't addressed in this charter.

I have two comments I agree with a gentleman who commented earlier that the commission for compensation should have no person on it that is uh benefited by the decisions of that compensation commission so it should be from the citizens of the city and um however you select those they should have no contracts with the city they should have no compensation from the taxes that come in.

The second one is on the wards I think you have two options on the wards and the first option would be a citywide election after a ward has nominated uh um person to be on the commission that is probably not a very I would say a very useful desig designation anything different than what we do right now um just a slight difference so I would narrow down what you present to the voters as awards with a person nominated from the wards and then voted on from the wards which would make it a meaningful change otherwise the change is just um a little bit more of the same so thank you.

Thank you I one of the reasons that the county puts all of its county commissioners on their compensation commission and one of the reasons why I suggested two commissioners was because part of the issue is how do they work how much are they working and um to give there's going to be when we're done with um the new charter if it passes there are a lot of unknowns will there be six commissioners or four that will affect the workload of commissioners and so someone to look at the workload of commissioners in particular I think it's important and the idea of having a couple commissioners who won't represent a minority on the board so that there's a a conversation that goes on about what's realistic for the amount of time.

That's where that came from.

Yeah, yeah, I understand that.

As a business person, I get reports from parts of my business all the time, and that's what I would expect that commission that compensation commission to do, that they would be talking with the commissioners, finding out how much time there is.

They'd also be collecting information from other cities on what they compensate to feel uh see what is a fair and um probably just um common type of compensation for that.

But I will warn our elected officials, there is tax exhaustion from your members.

There is tax exhaustion from us on the city paying our city taxes, paying our property taxes, paying our income taxes.

Uh and we have to have some kind of relief from that.

We want to see efficiencies.

We want to see uh the most frugal way that you can get the job done, and we want to see that communicated to us, and we do want to be part of the process.

So I applaud the commission on uh including more interaction with your local neighborhoods and their associations, and I would commend that that go forward.

But um, everything you mentioned about finding out what the commissioners spend for time on the work, uh that's a conversation.

There should be transparency, and I would uh expect that to be part of the transparency on what's being spent and how much time the commissioners are spending to create the budgets and to create the oversight that's needed.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Sebastian?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Richard Bacher, live at 1470 Boylan Road.

I'm a member of the Bridger Creeklands area of neighborhoods, neighborhood association, also the Inc.

representative, past uh past chairman and now Secretary Treasurer of the Inc.

I think our entire uh Inc.

membership was kind of taken aback by public comments and written correspondence to the study commission recommending that uh Article 8 be removed from the charter, the revised charter.

I think it's incumbent on the on the city to have robust public participation.

Uh I know of no better way to do it than through the inner neighborhood council.

It's a good collaboration of neighbors and a representative who will represent us here at the city.

Um, one of the few recommendations, and after Chuck Wynne spoke, I don't think that uh it's more of an administrative, but I think uh the inner neighborhood council should be a budget item.

There should be money set aside for annual meetings, uh, you know, neighborhood get togethers to increase neighborhood uh participation.

I thank you all for all the hard work you've done, and I hope that uh Article 8 stays in place, and I hope that you work with Chuck Chuck Wynn and all the city uh officers to craft a new charter that works both administratively and legally.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Richard.

Any questions of Richard?

Thank you very much.

Is there any other public comment?

I'm gonna let you all think for a minute, and we'll take public comment.

No.

I was gonna say we could shift.

We could shift to online people for a little bit too.

Um good evening.

I'm Lynn Paul, uh 3150 Graf Street, and I'd like to thank the study commit group for their commitment to the thoughtful revisions of the city charter, resulting in this tentative report.

The study group prioritize public engagement in their initial work plan, and then you were highly successful in promoting and receiving public input.

I think your work serves as an excellent example of how public engagement as defined by the city charter can work.

There are three areas within the public engagement section that I think are most difficult to accomplish, but the most important if public engagement will be successful and trusted.

I think these areas deserve more clarity and more definition, as perhaps found in 808.04.

The first section is the assumption that as stated in the tentative report that public engagement shall ensure two-way communication between city and community.

That certainly has not been the case in the past several years.

Public engagement has been a one-way communication.

Bozeman citizens should be applauded for their interest and dedication to provide input to commissioners regarding Bozeman's growth.

But the frequent and clear input was seemingly disregarded.

Their one-way input did not ensure communication from the commissioners, even though two city commission documents, one being the strategic plan of priorities for two thousand twenty-four and twenty-five, listed public engagement as the top priority.

If commission are seemingly not listening to Bozeman citizens, who were they listening to?

How were they making their decisions?

Public engagement and input has been very strong in the past several years, but the input for the most part is seemingly not taken into consideration while making decisions.

Again, the study group provided a successful example of how transparency can inform community decisions and develop trust.

And then the fact that the city shall be clear about purpose, scope, and how input will be used, uh while allowing flexibility.

Similar to transparency, accountability needs to be well defined if the public is willing to trust the process.

And I think again, more detail and thought into what that means.

So both the commissioners and the public understand what these areas mean in accountability and transparency.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lynn.

Any questions of Lynn?

Becky.

Lynn, we have a question.

Sorry.

Um, thank you for sharing that information and for being so thoughtful in writing out your comments and everything.

Um I'm gonna uh ask you what I asked Chuck, which is what I hear you saying is that under section 8.03, you're looking for more specificity in the language, um, while uh I'll also ask not writing a book.

Um but if you could send us like so what do you mean by that?

What would it look like if it was great?

You can email that to us um sooner than later.

That would be great.

Okay.

So thank you.

Would you be willing to do that?

I'm happy to do that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lynn.

Who's next?

I'm gonna start.

Timing the amount of time it takes to get from your seat to the podium.

Who's next?

All right, why don't we switch to the online comment and that'll give you all a rest and uh think about whether you want to give us more information?

Caleb.

Yeah, we do have online comment.

We have Andrew Thomas, and I will allow you to talk.

And you can begin whenever.

Hello.

My name is Andrew Thomas.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Gallatin Valley Sentinel, and I am here to provide you with a brief summary of the survey results of the Gallatin Valley Sentinel who retained me because of my knowledge of statistical analysis, law and public policy to assist in their efforts with the local government study.

So after I provide you with these uh results, I'm happy to entertain any questions you might have about GBS's survey.

So before I get to the results, I want to put it on the record that on January 1st of this year, the Gallatin Valley Sentinel submitted a public records request for the study commission's open survey data.

As of today, that request remains unfulfilled.

We wanted to wait to release our results until we had the opportunity to perform the same statistical analysis on the data that you gathered and compare it directly to our results.

That was not possible due to the delay in receiving the data and the timing of this hearing.

The Gallatin Valley Sentinel is releasing their findings tonight without that comparison, not because that is what they wanted to do, but that is because time ran out on us getting the data to the public and the study commission before the charter language is finalized.

So in terms of the survey we conducted, the sample size of our survey was 611 unique respondents.

The surveying software used prohibited more than one response from the same IP address, thereby controlling for not allowing the same person to take the survey multiple times.

I will note that the study commission survey did not have the same control mechanism.

Respondents came from all four quadrants of Bozeman, a near-even split of renters and homeowners, every age group and mix of political affiliations responded to the survey.

And we also had representation in every demographic group, and by and large, the survey results were consistent.

So this is the summary of the survey results that were garnered from the data.

On confidence in city government, most respondents are not confident in the current structure or are neutral to it.

Very few are confident.

That should concern every member of the study commission, regardless of the changes you ultimately propose because it affirms the high percentage of Bozeman voters who opted for the study seeking real change.

Now, in terms of attitudes towards wards, there is strong support for ward-based elections across every group we measured, every quadrant, age range, renters, and homeowners alike.

Just as importantly, the majority of respondents across all categories support ward residency requirements for voting, meaning that only people who live in a ward should be the ones that elect their representative.

Now, regarding the mayor's role, a strong majority favor the mayor as a presiding officer, not as an executive with expanded power.

Multiple respondents specifically reference Belgrade's model where the mayor votes only to break a tie.

The majority also prefer a four-year term, and the majority favor term limits for the mayor.

Now, in terms of commission size, there is support from all groups for increasing the size of the commission, but multiple respondents were explicit that this support is conditional on ward-based representation.

Now, in terms of mayor or commissioner compensation, the majority believe commissioners and the mayor should receive a salary, but be unclassified as employees.

The written comments are full of concern about pay increasing further, with residents repeatedly saying commissioners are already paid enough.

The decisions of the study commission to retain the commissioner manager's structure of government, eliminate the role of the deputy mayor, and leave it to voters to decide if we move towards wards and the expanded commission are all supported by our survey data.

However, there is still room for improvement in making language of the compensation board less specific as the majority of respondents do not support increasing commission pay, and the formula written into the charter is slanted towards doing just that.

So I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the survey.

I'm not sure if GVS has already released it.

However, that will be available to you soon if they haven't already done so.

Thank you, Andrew.

Are there any questions of Andrew Thomas?

Deanna.

Thank you, Andrew.

Um I I wouldn't reserve questions until we have the data in front of us and can really look at it.

I think that there are some really important points in here that we need to consider.

At a at a future meeting.

Other questions, Andrew?

My quick question, Andrew, is were you able to determine the residence of the people that responded, meaning city residents are outside?

Yes.

So the survey categorized individuals based upon their zip code, and they also self-identified as being residents in one of the four geographic quadrants of Bozeman.

So what percentage were within the city of Bozeman?

If you can hold on just a second, that is towards the beginning of the survey.

So 61 of the respondents identified as.

And is it your position that because so many people think that we should have wards and ward representatives voted for people by wards?

Is it the position of the sentinel that therefore we shouldn't put that on the ballot?

We just make it part of the part of the uh, I I'm not sure what what the I'm I'm not sure what GVS's specific position is on this.

However, the survey data clearly suggests that there is strong support for wards, and that there is strong support for having war-based residency restrictions on who can vote for representatives from that specific ward versus at-large candidates.

So the survey asked a variety of questions about first preference for continuing the at-large commission voting system, and then it specified a question about whether or not wards are preferable, and then the nature of how ward representatives are elected either at large throughout the entire city of Bozeman or uh from within that ward in a geographically limited sense.

So that is all specified in the survey.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you for your uh testimony, Andrew.

Thank you.

And that is it for online public comment right now.

All right.

You all have had a chance to relax, think.

Is there any other public comment at this time?

Can we review it?

Mark, you can't do repeats.

I think in this uh, oh, the way you made it sound was like maybe I could follow up with something.

Well, I think if you're the only one, I think I'm totally fine with it.

Um, and I think we all are.

How many other people want repeat?

Opportunity.

Go for it, Mark, and then no one can decide.

I appreciate you uh extending this opportunity.

Just real quick, I was I was wondering if the voting, the voting is a survey in a way.

I was just it's a open question.

Maybe you guys could follow up on.

Uh, do we get to know if those people who voted against the charter what they voted for for the options if they did vote?

Like it'd be fun to do a Bayesian analysis of like conditional upon X people voted Y.

It's just I don't know if the election office will break it down anonymously for you.

I think they do.

Okay.

They give you the results of everything that was on their ballot.

The correlations between the votes are really, I don't want to lose that.

So that's just a thought.

Thanks.

Yeah, thanks.

Evening, Emily Talego, Bozeman resident, uh in Midtown.

Um, came in late here.

So I've read through a bunch of the written public comments.

And so it seems like somebody, somebody's somebody's beeping here.

Um the acoustics are really rough in this room.

Uh anyway, my public comment.

Um it seems like we have the recording here.

People can reference the debates and the dialogues that you've had.

I don't want someone's being distracting.

Can whoever's making that noise, can you stop make it stop for a second, just so Emily can be able to think about her thoughts.

I'm trying to show up, I think.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Um, can we restart her timer, please?

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thank you.

Um but essentially, yeah, it sounds like there's some little bit of buffing out that has to happen, but no big like substantive stuff is is shifting at this point.

So I'm really here just um in gratitude for the work that you guys have done.

I have I've watched remotely for a lot of it, and um I could feel the tension that was happening.

And I'm and today, where it's so easy to just go into our camps and our echo chambers and um and and not engage in the dialogue and that uncomfortable uh differing opinions.

Um I'm just really thankful that you guys dug in.

You didn't always agree, but you spoke about it, and you're doing best that you can to be responsive, and we're seeing a lot right now.

Um this struggle to be heard, right?

Where is the public in government anymore?

Um we are the people, we invest the power into the government.

So, as a kicking off to, you know, from adding the engagement chapter, all these things.

I'm not gonna go into what everyone else has done, but um, it's clear to me that you have um done diligence in being responsive while also balancing things that may be happening at a very specific moment in time, and how to zoom out and recognize that we're looking at a charter for the next two decades.

So thank you.

Thank you for sitting through the discomfort.

Thank you for engaging with constituents.

Um thank you for for listening.

Thanks.

Thank you, Emily.

Any questions of Emily?

Emily, you can yield.

We're trying to emulate the legislature where the legislators get to ask questions of people if they need clarification.

I'll yield.

I don't have any.

We don't have any.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Any other public comment?

Uh thanks for letting us go back and forth a little bit.

Um I had some time to think about sort of the uh appointment process, and it was unclear to me whether or not you guys had discussed potentially if it's only the body of commissioners that do eventually get to vote for the new candidate, whether or not you could actually become more nuanced or granular about the process and it being a blind vote, for instance.

Like it was an open vote where each commissioner could wait to see what how the other voted and then shift their choice to affect the outcome.

And I'm really stuck on this because it just felt like uh the entire process of being involved as I didn't even want to be involved in the city, but I became involved.

It felt like probably the most in your face.

Um uh corrupt, potentially corrupt version of government that I don't know if there's a back and forth that would it'd be nice if it might have you guys discussed that the blind ballot thing and whether or not you can be more nuanced if there's any appetite for it.

So I think that that would be a really good thing to think about.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, uh hang on, Noah.

Yeah, I just wanted to speak, of course, only for myself, but I think um I was very invested in two things.

One is the alternative, which was some people's preference of maybe up to 100,000 for an election to fill a vacancy that might be less than a year.

I don't remember all the numbers, quite honestly.

We've had a lot of learning going on, and whether or not there would be a really adequate turnout to replace somebody in certainly would be more than five commissioners, obviously, but it would not necessarily be um a guarantee of a deeper democracy dive, which is my commitment from the beginning on this commission.

So I know I was pressing for a lot of things, not only the extension of time to the 60 days, not only the candidate forum, but really um other ways that we can be engaging with um the candidate forums themselves, that League of Women Voters do, all the way to um making sure that um many of us have worked to create voter guides that candidates can compare and contrast their positions on a number of key issues.

That's only the beginning for me in all of this, and I couldn't get it all into the charter, but I certainly want to work on it as a member of this community to uh both work within the framework of this legislative requirement.

But for me, as I just said, the um ways that we could have uh a broader replacement um so that the so that the commission could be moving forward with a full group of people as soon as possible, but that would be a much better and more intentional system, and that's why we all also re have recommended because we couldn't require job descriptions of the commission, and that is part of the recommendations that Mary was referring to.

That I think a lot of people like some of those recommendations, but they weren't going to be a part of the charter for all of the reasons that we heard earlier.

So I don't want to have a conversation about it.

I just want to give you one person's opinion.

But happy to talk about it offline.

Sure.

Thank you.

You can treat it as a question and respond to it.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, no, uh I appreciate the thought that has gone into it.

And I I guess my question is in the public's question, maybe what is the governor on your body and what gets included in the charter and how it gets included, like what are the metrics, who's interjecting, you know, what's limiting your creative potential in putting language out there, like electing, you know, a sort of reserve commissioner during at-large commission meetings.

Like, where's the creativity?

Oh, just yes.

Thank you.

Carson, can I ask a question of the people who are here?

Sure.

Okay.

Hey, y'all, on page 12 of the of the amended charter under section 7.02.

Um, is like I said, the charter has to be if the amended charter gets approved, um, then that allows the suboptions to potentially take hold.

If the amended charter does not get approved, then that means even if the suboptions get approved, they don't take hold.

Okay.

So we have worked really hard to try to make this a readable document as best as we can, because the public has to say, yes, this is a great charter or no, and then the whole thing goes back to the current charter or back to the deputy mayor or back to everything that we have right now.

Okay.

So under 7.02, when you read that, and it says, you know, if the voters choose to elect commissioners by wards, they can now determine whether the commissioners are elected at large by all voters in the city or only by voters residing within a ward, and then it shows what would happen in selection one, selection two.

Is that clear?

If if there's any clarity we can provide to that, I know Barb, you would um you had worked really hard on this language to make sure that we have to have this piece in the amended charter.

We can't just have it as a separate suboption, but is this language clear?

Um, and if and more to the point, if it's not clear, what could help it be more clear?

Again, we're we're very solution focused.

So take your time.

If something comes up, I'd love to hear it.

And Carson, may I offer something for the record?

Certainly.

I would just propose that we are going to continue to to take the feedback gathered tonight and through the written comment and polish the rough edges and clarify things.

So if you still have written comment, you can still submit it.

We would just ask that the deadline be close the business June 26th.

So that's 10 days from now, so that we have it all together at once and we can go through it and address it at our next meeting.

Carson?

May I add to that question?

Um also uh some feedback on um the commission, the seated commission, uh determining the boundaries of the wards.

If we could get some feedback on that, it would be good.

Carson, it might be helpful.

Oh, more comment, great.

Someone's coming up, please.

Hi, uh Kathy Rich, and um I am a resident of Bozeman.

I also sit on the Inc.

board and represent um the UNA, the University Neighborhood Association.

Um, but I'm speaking for myself, and just to get back to your question, um, one thing in my dealings with um school issues is that um pictures or diagrams um sometimes help because people don't read very much, and so if there's some kind of diagram that you could use to show, you know, like you have this and you have all the voters voting for just this ward.

Do you know do you know what I mean?

If you have some kind of diagram that will show what you mean by who gets to vote for who, and if you're gonna limit it to a ward, you know, if you live in the ward, you vote for this commissioner, you have like a diagram that shows that versus um at large.

So it's just simple, but sometimes people, if they see it, if they're visual, they might be able to understand it a little bit better because it is confusing.

Yes, it is.

So, Kathy.

And I also just um at some point I know um this is the uh difference between four commissioners and six commissioners, and I'm not quite sure what the benefits are.

If I mean it seems like going to six would just be more expensive, or is there some kind of um gauge of how many people, like population, we'd have to hit where six makes more sense?

Um interesting question.

Um we just thought we'd put it to the voters and see what they thought.

It would there's certain areas where commissioners are part is parceled out between them.

So um a liaison to the advisory boards.

If you have four people or five, including the mayor going to um an assigned advisory board, it's more work than if you have seven people doing the same liaison, so to speak, with it.

Uh, same with neighborhood associations and in Inc.

Is the most efficient use to have one commission liaison to the inner neighborhood council, or would it be advisable to assign um commissioners to each neighborhood association?

Well, the minute you get there, you're you're creating a lot of work, um, and then if you're spreading the work out, um, it works a little better.

On the other hand, the fundamentals exist for everybody.

Read the materials, be ready for the meeting, um, you know, gather your own sources of public input, listen to the public input and make decisions.

So if it expanded it inevitably from the perspective of percentage of you know, you're paying more probably for for that.

I will point out the city budget is like um I think it's 200 million dollars a year.

And I did a rough calculation.

If you paid um all the commissioners and the mayor full time, you're not gonna add that much to that number um at all.

And so there is a proportionate thing that goes on.

Um, we haven't talked about now I'm doing exactly what I told them they couldn't do.

You're doing exactly that so let me just finish.

Um the idea of compensation had to do with can we have people who don't have uh the wherewithal to take a job that takes a good bit of time and doesn't get paid what they would get paid if they were getting a job on the market, and how do you then create a good economic mix of people on the commission?

So I'm gonna let Deanna speak because um, I stepped over the line.

Thank you, Carson.

In answer to your question of uh why uh the number of wards or commissioners, the primary reason would be for um better representation.

The more commissioners you have, the more wards you have, and therefore um greater representation.

Uh so that would be the point.

The um the one suggestion I'd have if you do I actually either way, um, is that once you um draw the boundaries for the wards is to work with the Inc.

Um board and their boundaries so you don't have neighborhood associations crossing over under two different wards.

So hopefully we can work and adjust them so it makes sense for both um wards or associations.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And I appreciate everything you do.

Mary Bateson, uh Bozeman resident, and this is in response to the question about section 7.02 and whether or not it's confusing.

And I'd say yes, it's quite confusing.

And I have a couple suggestions on ways to make it less confusing.

First, it's the order where you say for convenience of the voters and the method of uh election, those two paragraphs under the underlined portion that directly because we don't have it on the screen.

Oh, there it is.

Okay.

So the material in the the for convenience and the method of those two paragraphs are about what you're presenting.

They're not part of the charter, so it could be italicized.

It could also come first before your underlined portion.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, just some.

Sorry, to you mean you mean to somehow identify that this wouldn't stay in the charter.

This is correct.

So this is just a scriptive words, correct.

Not not like put them in a box or size or something.

Get it to then part in the the two selection, one and two.

The main differences in those selections is part A and Part A.

Part B appears to me to be exactly the same.

And I would not, I mean, that should be separate and possibly first before you call out selection one and two.

So if wards are chosen, Part B describes how they're chosen.

That's not a difference.

That's not different.

So then give people the description of selection one and two.

And this exact section is why I got up earlier and said I'm worried, because this is the kind of confusion that's going to make people crazy and not want them to vote for the charter.

And so, I mean, you know, my position is that I'm very adamantly against wards.

I don't want more commissioners.

I want, you know, the the strengthening of our system to be based on our boards, our advisory boards, and ink.

Um so, but at the same time, if you're going to give people a choice, make the choice as clear as possible, and give them a full choice.

So you heard me very much say that before.

Appreciate that.

Thanks.

Hi, my name is Laithie Poole.

I'm actually a resident slightly outside of the city limits, but my business address is in the city limits, so and I'm also very interested.

So anyway, I told Carson I wouldn't say anything unless there were a few things that I thought were unsaid.

And Deanna bringing up uh the uh the ability of the commission to redraw the wards, uh, was one thing that really jumped out at me in looking through what I had, which was the Gallatin Valley Sentinels appraisal of what was in uh in this survey, and you know, to be able to redraw the wards and thereby weaken or eliminate opposition just doesn't sound right.

And I don't know if I'm misinterpreting that.

I don't know if it's in there because the existing commissioners want it there, or it was something that you guys uh wrote, but I think that needs to be tightened up a little bit because it sounds um just not fair.

Um can I ask where where are you seeing that that we've got that the commissioners draw the lines?

It said that they there was a comment in there that said the lines of the wards could be redrawn.

Now, whether it's in your that was in the Gallatin Valley Sentinel conclusion of that.

Do you see it, Deanna?

Oh, the commission must divide the city into wards?

And it implied that there was sort of a backdoor way that they could redraw them, and I thought, well, if they could redraw them and thereby change, it sounds like gerrymandering, and it just didn't sound good.

So maybe I'm mistaken as really not in there, but uh, it is 702.

That's why I asked you from going that out.

And you too, you uh you know.

Um also just a side note, I don't really think the salary idea is gonna fly.

And um, that you know, might be one of the things that torpedoes a lot of the things in a very good rewriting of of the um of the charter.

But to me, the people that are making the median salary are working, they're entrepreneurial, they have to create products, they have to appease their, they have to find customers.

They have to deliver goods to them, and to automatically award that salary to uh uh an employee of the city doesn't really seem fair to me because you take none of the risks.

I mean, I've been entrepreneurial since I guess I was 18, and um you take all the risks, you take a lot of the hits, you have the you deserve to reap the rewards of the upside and you take all the hits when you fail.

And and to slave that to a salary of uh of a city commissioner just doesn't doesn't seem fair.

I do realize it has to reflect enough money to attract a good candidate.

If it's zero dollars or whatever, you're not gonna get good candidates.

So you want them to be good, but to have it uh it should be decided in a reasonable way by maybe a committee, and then I think it's it's more fair, but to slave it to what the people in town are making when there aren't any risks on this end uh doesn't seem fair.

And I don't think people are gonna really when you start talking about money, that's when people get really personally involved.

I don't think that's gonna fly.

So those are those are the only things that uh also uh oh I think more commissioners and more wards.

Uh as Bozeman grows exponentially, you know, we want to feel represented.

And um so I I don't object to that, even though I know it's a nominal increase in the what is an enormous budget.

Um I sometimes question whether the people on the commission are really qualified to disperse those enormous amounts of money.

Um, you know, gee.

But anyway, I I do like the ward idea and uh the greater amount of commissioners.

Now, I'm not sure I understand this, and you guys could explain it.

Let's say Bozeman came up with 12 wards.

Do they each elect sort of a representative?

And who hears that person?

Or is it just that they are there and and hope that the commission represents them equally?

I just don't quite understand how that works.

It depends on how the election goes and different cities do differently.

Missoula, for instance, has 12 commissioners.

And their population is we're catching up to them.

And um, they're paid less, probably because there's less for them to do because from each ward there are two commissioners.

Um I don't know that that solves a problem.

Um, but it the idea of a ward where you voted from the ward, in other words, only the people that live in the ward is they have um someone that they can go talk to and your electorally responsible to them.

They don't like what you do.

They vote you out, um, and so that's that's sort of where that comes from.

The complications of creating wards, as you indicated, I think two issues are coming up to rise.

And and I want us to talk about what issues we're we're hearing here.

But one is how do you create wards in a way that does not involve gerrymandering?

And is there such a way?

That that's step one, and two is if you had a compensation committee, how could you structure it in a way that they did fairly um by the commissioners in such a way that people from all walks of life were encouraged to run for office rather than um people who don't need the money, which is basically um my opinion as to what's happened over time.

So, but I hear you on the compensation issue being that may be the thing that gets in the kind of a hot potato.

I and I I wouldn't have to just look at what other cities are doing.

I don't have a uh perfect answer there, but um there's sort of a happy medium between not enough to make to attract good people and then too much making it look like where'd you come up with that?

You know, to object to what the coding commissioners get paid.

Uh right now what they make, it it it seems it seems nominal.

I'd have to look but uh I don't I'm not I don't really hate it.

Um but it it uh but the cap on the proposed way that it could is too high, I think.

If it really could cap at 109, I think that's too much.

But you know, keeping it in 40, 25 to 40 range seems fair, but that's just totally off the top of my head, you know, looking at um employees and things like that other questions can I make a recommendation I don't have any further questions thank you let's see if there are any other comments you have a you have a question and then there's someone Carson Mike has a Mike has a should I sit down question yes Mike asked the question oh I actually had a question for Laithy So you're earlier we talked about the the charter should have the what and the who so in this section 702 B the what is wards and the ward boundaries if not the commission then who should draw the boundaries of the wards if it's not the already election can we pick like real true neighborhoods in town I was thinking you know aren't there designated areas that just really define themselves um maybe based on on the elementary schools or something like that I mean I've lived in several neighborhoods around the city and they seem to kind of define themselves but I I don't really have a perfect answer for that but so to keep it a true neighborhood where people uh sort of feel like a sense of belonging seems better than to draw it and then reach over here and pull something in because it pulls in opposing viewpoints or whatever I I don't mind having the security of feeling like you've been in a neighborhood for a long time and that there is a core of people that have been there a long time who have certain attitudes and I it seems like it wouldn't be that hard but I I have never done that for anybody um I don't know it seems like it might be sort of a natural thing they need to be they need to be approximately equal in population yeah that that's a little I I also wanted to ask the GVS when they were taking that survey and they got from all quadrants which quadrant got the most respondents and how many were there so you'd kind of see if there was a heavier weight in northeast northwest or whatever I don't know exactly how they drew the lines but it seems like it probably would be centered around elementary schools.

I think people really draw to those neighbors where their children are and where their sports are and things like that.

I don't think it'd be too hard.

Thank you you better thank you other public comment this come right up Susan Hinkins this is really quick.

In response to Mary's comments it is very important that you make the charter clear and and easy to read but most people who go to vote won't have read the charter.

That's right.

So the most important thing for getting a good vote is to get a good ballot written and I highly recommend that you get different options and you get focus groups and you try it out on people who have maybe read the charter people you can use city employees you could ask your friends and neighbors you've got to try it out because that's what's gonna count.

Thank you.

Carson can I make a one comment just to remind people just so you know the the uh uh recommended ballot is in part D like dog of the report and then also on the next agenda item is our ballot election folks so that's um that's kind of leading right us leading us right into the next agenda item thank you.

I'll ask the chair to allow me to presume that I still have two minutes.

So I just wanted to share with you um at times an unpopular um but sometimes uh a rational way of thinking about this idea of who um at some point, we will butt up against.

That's what elections are for.

I deeply appreciate the moment that we're in um nationally, locally uh and how much you're trying to address that and but it but it does come to a point that let's pressure test that.

What would that look like?

So let's say somehow we get some sort of tyrannical commission that all of them, every single one of them, is going to say, I am going to split this into wards.

I'm going to make sure that I have all the power and all the control.

I dearly hope that we are not at a place where people don't have the capacity to challenge that.

We do have other provisions, we have recall, we have other tools to deal with that, and ultimately we do have elections.

And so I think what while I understand what is trying to be responded to right now and why some things have gotten so granular that I've been very surprised.

So I would be comfortable keeping that there.

We can also, I think make a few assumptions about best practices when we have things like that.

If you want to get granular, you could say something, the city commission shall convene a task force or a temporary board, if you really wanted to kind of dispel that fear, but I do think it's like there's generally best practices, and when things start to veer outside of that, that's when people start you start to hear about it.

Um so thanks.

Thanks for allowing me to speak again.

Thank you.

Questions?

Let's take people who have not yet spoken.

Hi, I'm Trish Freheim.

I live on East Lammy.

Um, speak in in front of the microphone.

Okay.

Can you say your name again?

Trish Preheim on East Lammy.

Um, so I actually just have, and I don't know if this is appropriate and what you're looking for, but a couple of sort of questions or observations as you continue talking about this process and how it's going to move forward.

Um, one question is is there a reason that if the charter amended charter is not approved, that the sub-options have to be eliminated.

It's right in the MCA that we try to pick around it.

And is that in the materials that that's dictated by the MCA?

I guess I would just suggest that you take a look at that, that perhaps to the extent that there are things that we're not allowed to do, that that be very clear in the in the explanations that you have, so that people like me don't ask those questions.

Thank you.

Um, I think that the ballot, as as the woman suggested, is really critical.

Um, I personally think that the way the ballot is written is quite clear.

Um I had one suggestion, which would be rather than using the word in the sub option two, or I guess it's also in sub option one, instead of referring to existing, that you might consider putting in the word current.

It's a it's a knit, I understand, but that may better communicate to people that it's there's no change in that piece of it.

Um, but I would just suggest from a presentation perspective that you think about moving the ballot to the very beginning of the packet, it kind of clarifies and focuses attention on this is what we're looking at.

And then as you read through the materials, you have a better feel for why there's all this information in the materials and what you're really explaining.

Um as I'm listening to these conversations, at the end of the day, it's really about the vote.

The surveys are great, but it's really about the vote.

And the vote will tell what people want and don't want.

So while the surveys can be helpful, I think I wouldn't myself focus too much attention on those surveys, because the vote, the vote is the best survey.

And so how are we going to get people out to vote and vote in an educated way?

And going back a further step as we talk about community engagement.

How can the community engagement piece encourage more people to come forward to want to be elected to an office?

And how can we continue to improve the types of people and the qualifications of the people who are running for elected office?

And I don't think that that's not going to show up in the charter.

I don't think.

So I realize I'm not presenting you with uh specific language, but just some concepts to consider to think about and to think about as you're doing your marketing or promotion out in the community relative to this vote.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Like Barb said, there's still time to send us an email till end of business on June 26th.

I really appreciate your comments.

And she keeps leaning toward our next agenda and this conversation seems to be moving forward.

I wonder if we don't use our written public comment options.

Are there is there anyone else that needs to speak at this point before we move to the next agenda item?

Well, I just was um I was not clear.

Lynn Paul, I was not clear about the term ward.

I have a sense of what it is, but it's used quite a bit without I couldn't find a definition for it.

So I think in the charter, if that's going to be used, if that word's going to be used, it needs to be defined for people.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And the other thing that I want to mention, too, is that because of the public engagement, the history, the recent history of many people providing input without it seemingly not making any difference, that that somehow needs to be addressed.

Good.

Thank you very much.

All right, one more piece of public comment from someone who has not spoken today.

Not today, but hello, Natsuki Nakamura Bozeman resident, member with economic vitality board, not speaking that behalf, also member of the Better Broseman Coalition, but not speaking on that behalf as well.

Um I just had a few questions about the words.

Um, sorry I missed the conversation earlier today, so I don't know if this already came up.

Looking at the words language, it says the commission must divide the city into words.

My understanding was that the clerk and McCorder office does that, the county clerk McCord office, the same people who did the county wards would also do the city wards.

Um I don't believe it's any elected officials or city staff that does that, um, but maybe some clarification on that would be helpful.

Um, and I'm pretty sure yeah, if it if it is that office and they have a process to do that, and that's pretty standard based on the population.

Um, and then also the states that commissioners forfeit the office if their principal residents no longer within the ward.

I thought I remembered in one of the board education sessions that that question was specifically asked in concerned of renters who might move and therefore would lose their office.

I thought they said that that wouldn't happen, so that um to not discourage a renter from running and being able to hold that office.

Um, but if that is the case, either if required at the language that you want to have it, um it would be good to consider how that might discourage a renter to run, because maybe they can't commit to four years in the same address or even the same quadrant.

Um it might also be erase the issue again of appointments that if someone does a renter of ones or anyone runs and then it does end up that they have to move and the that seat becomes appointed, then we might see more appointments more often if we end up going to the ward system.

So again, since the appointment system hasn't really meaningfully changed, that might be a flag if if that if we're ending up to have more vacancies because people are moving or or becoming disqualified from holding that seat.

Um and then lastly, I guess I have a question about the transition, and again, you might you all might not have the answers to these questions, but maybe questions to ask whoever can answer them for the transition, say if we do transition to wards.

Um currently our commission is staggered, so like in 2027, one of the commission seats in the mayor's seat will be up for election, and then in 2029, if we keep this everything the same, the two more commission seats would be up for election.

So I guess some clarification of what a how we might move into it would be start fresh that everyone would be elected in 2029, some seats going for two years, some seats for four.

How might that transition look for award system?

Thanks.

Can you reference eleven point oh four?

So and then you can see the schedule, and you'd send us comments on that.

Okay, uh, yeah, 11.04 shows the schedule technically.

Oh, okay.

That was our effort.

Mike?

Question of Natsuki?

So not questions, but I can actually answer a couple of her questions here.

So the county clerk and recorder divides the county by districts because that's the will of the county commission, and their general powers are dictated that way, where are not general powers by being under a charter.

So we with a charter can set how those wards would be dropped.

The other part of it is related to the um boundaries and the eligibility.

So a ward boundary change cannot disqualify an elected official.

But if a ward boundary changed, then and that person was no longer in the current ward after their term, they would not be able to run in that ward.

So if you think about the current elected city commissioners, two of them were just elected last year.

If in the middle of their term wards are drawn, that would put them both in the same ward.

It doesn't change their current term, but the next election, they would have to run and only one appointment.

Yeah.

So it would happen afterwards.

And then on the transition thing, uh, one thing to flag that it because of that, it would be the the ward boundaries can be drawn, and then after that term is up for the two that were already elected, the next time those two seats would come up, they would have to be by the ward system.

So they may represent an area that would be in one ward, they could be in different wards, but then their election would be at a time representative of the ward.

Okay.

So maybe I haven't seen this.

Okay.

Yeah, keep going on.

Last thing on the transition, the one thing that wasn't in this that we will need to address is that if the commission is expanded by two, one of those would have to be a two-year term for the first time, and the other one would have to be a four-year term to maintain the half stagger.

But um, as far as the when the wards would kick in, it would be after the sitting commissioners' terms are up.

Yes.

Or if they left by appointment and those ward boundaries and it was filled by appointment, the appointee would have to reside in that ward.

Okay, yes, I that's aligns with my understanding as well.

But I guess it's like how would you know which ward would be the first ones elected and which ones would be kind of in the next cycle?

So I I mean, maybe we won't know until we have a ward map, but like how, say those, you know, all maybe three live in the same quadrant.

How do we know that that would be the first one up for election?

Well, then other three would be in the next one.

You know, which wards would have been um based on their current terms.

So but we don't have wards now.

Correct.

So in the drawing of the boundary, those wards would have to take effect prior to the election that contained wards.

Say there's four wards.

We'll just say nine in Maine.

Yeah.

If you have two that are in one, the at the end of their term, they would have to run against each other to represent that ward.

Or move.

Or move.

You know, there's plenty of national politicians to move.

Okay, yeah, I guess we get elected.

I was just curious.

People might want to know, like, say, if we do the four quadrants, like, well, Northeast and Southwest be the first two that transition to wards, and then the other two would transition in the next cycle.

So depends on the current residency of the current sitting commissioners.

So we can't so we can't say that.

I mean each current commissioner will end up living in a ward.

We don't know what yet, because we haven't drawn those.

And so we won't know which wards get elected by ward first.

Oh, like it'll depend on whose term expires when.

So, like I guess that's the commissioner that lives in ward in the northeast ward, their term expires first.

That'll be the first one that moves to the ward system.

Okay, interesting.

Thank you, Natsuka.

Let's we need to get going.

Is there anybody else online, Caleb?

Um, we do.

It looks like we have a representative of Gallatin Valley Sentinel, so you'll have to identify yourself um when you start.

Um, and you can begin.

Hi there.

Um this is Katie Adams from the Gallatin Valley Sentinel.

Um I just wanted to chime in on a couple things and um maybe ask that question for clarification.

Um it sounded like earlier maybe there was some uncertainty about the language regarding who establishes the ward boundaries.

So I just wanted to read uh just briefly from what you have in the current draft charter, and that is in uh section 702 on methods of electing city commissioners.

Um and so it just reads um I'll just read the first sentence that the commission must divide the city into wards, one following adoption of the charter, two after each decennial census, and three at any other time as determined by the city commission.

So I just wanted to point to that as uh where that concern came from, leaving that up to the city commission.

And then just wanted to highlight um, I think it maybe it was Commissioner Campbell who asked about suggestions for uh who draws ward boundaries, and I'll just refer to our public comment from earlier today, uh, where we referred to um the Montana Constitution and how districts and precincts are or districts are set for Montana elections.

So that's uh Article 5, section 142 of the Montana Constitution.

And I sent a link in our public comment earlier, as I mentioned, but that basically establishes an independent advisory board for establishing ward boundaries, and everything that you have in that section um looks good.

The only recommendation that we have is to change just that first sentence to change the who to an independent advisory board.

And then the only other thing would be to change um bullet point number three at any other time is determined by the city commission or even the independent advisory board.

Um that seems a little bit uh ambiguous as to when that would happen.

Um the language that we recommended was uh each ward shall be compact, contiguous, and structured so that the population disparity between wards does not exceed 10% at the time of any boundary determination to the maximum extent feasible boundaries of each ward shall be compact, contiguous, and as nearly as equal in population as practicable and shall preserve existing neighborhood association boundaries to the maximum if extent feasible.

Um so those would just be a couple of recommendations.

Um taking into consideration the public comment earlier about uh the concern of a neighborhood association being split into multiple wards that would address that.

And then um just the other thing really quick would be on the filling of vacancies.

Um if the method is going to be to uh still fill vacancies by appointment, there is still a conflict in the charter on how that is filled in the case of the mayor.

Um so section 2.06A says that the vice mayor will step in for the mayor in the case of a vacancy, and section 206C states that the position of mayor will be filled by appointment in the case of a vacancy.

So just our recommendation there would be to establish a clear order of succession where the vice mayor would step in first, and if for some reason the vice mayor is unable or unwilling to serve, maybe because of time constraint, uh the commission would appoint one of the remaining elected commissioners, and then only if no elected officials willing or able to serve uh should the commission turn to an outbed appointment.

So just wanted to add that to the conversation and uh appreciate what you're doing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Katie.

Any questions of Katie?

Anybody else online?

No, all right.

I'm gonna conclude public comment.

Thank you all very much for coming.

I'm gonna use the gavel to conclude it so that it's definitive.

Thank you all for your comments, those who have still here and those who have left.

Uh I appreciate it.

We're now gonna discuss public education and then we will discuss future meetings and how we resolve some of the trends and issues that have come up in this meeting, um, which I think uh are significant and we we need to uh deal with them, but we have time.

So thank you very much.

Public comment is ended.

Next item on the agenda.

Did we want to take a break?

No, you all want to power through.

We want to power through our little bit.

Is to talk about um the public education's people level of engagement, and they um prepared a uh speakers outline for us and some homework for us as well.

Um I don't know if you all want to step up uh and maybe hand that hand that out.

But the key question in front of us is um how much education we need to do um and how we need to do it.

And obviously, in this discussion, we're not it's not gonna be so much how, but how much and and therefore where do we go with this discussion?

And um with that in mind, uh we lost Mike.

I was gonna ask Mike, where are we on our budget?

I think it'll be right back.

I don't know, but we do have like the tracker and the claims that I can pull up for you, great.

Up above the budget tracking, yeah.

135,000.

Okay.

Any questions?

Well, I will just point out that while we have 135,000 as our remaining balance, 35,000 of that has to go to the county election office for the ballot.

So we have 100,000.

Got it.

But we're going to have the report before we make the budget decision.

If do I are we going to have the report uh their report before we make a budget decision so we know what we're voting on?

Yeah, we haven't been presented anything.

Thank you.

We're just wondering how much money we have.

Oh, perfect.

Thanks.

I might say that we also had a uh we have some reserve somewhere in our budget.

Um at least as I recall, we had put aside uh I think it's ten thousand dollars for additional uh legal uh services in our original budget.

So Mike, we're trying to figure out where we are in the budget.

How much money we're left?

How much money we have left.

And frankly, in my mind, that doesn't preclude us from going back to the commission and asking them for more.

If if um if that's what we need to have a fully well-educated public that are gonna vote on something that I think we can clearly and unequivocally describe as more complicated than um many things.

I think if we're talking about original budgets, it would be helpful to have it to compare to this because I don't recall setting that money aside.

I just would like to see it in that original budget.

Yeah, so the the numbers in this column here are the original budgeted amounts.

The who and the what?

So the column budgeted amount.

These are the amounts that so total one mil 245,2074 cents.

Our finance department rounds everything, so that's where you get the 245,208, right on this line.

So we we had thought that we had we have um 130 35,000 dollars left right now, but $35,000 goes to the election uh department, so that leaves us with $100,000.

Is that basically what we're talking about, Mike?

Roughly yes.

Okay, thank you.

I'm sorry, what did you say, Mike?

I didn't think yes, roughly, 100,000.

Okay.

So what are you asking of Daniel at this point?

Other than introduce yourselves, please.

Yeah, I'm uh Tor Goodmanson with Dan Geld.

Uh I'm one of our owners, and I'm really excited to be here.

It's been wonderful to get to hear the public comment.

Uh I at Carson's request presented all of you with a rough draft speech outline as well as some homework.

Uh frankly, after hearing the comment tonight, there's already a few things I'd edit on it, which is exactly what we expected.

We have drafts of many of our documents ready here, thinking about you guys engaging.

Uh, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the voter engagement.

I'd stand behind the rough sort of tier levels within our pricing breakdown of effective engagement in our proposal, but I think within those, I would not think of those as hard cost numbers.

We use the voters in the Bozeman electorate to determine what is an effective level of engagement there.

So at our at our lowest effective engagement, that's spending $1.50 per voter for the number of voters who voted in the last municipal election.

In that medium level, we're spending $1.50 on every registered voter, and at that higher level, we're spending about $3 a voter.

We can do a lot within the space between these numbers.

I wouldn't think of these as as discrete options.

I would make your, you know, encourage you to consider your own budget, and we will do our best to engage with your voters, whatever level of engagement you choose.

Becky.

So what I'm seeing here is that um uh we've got sixty thousand dollars for consultant time, but then the question is is how much for the media content, and we've got the lowest active and transformative is that and that adds to the 60,000.

Yes, ma'am, that's that correct.

Yes.

Okay.

And seeing the complexity of our charter and our ballot, um, and some of the comments that we've heard this evening.

Um what would you recommend in terms of?

I mean, I I've never run a ballot thing, I don't know what it costs, I mean what $1.50 spent per voter really means.

So uh I actually I can I would want to work from that number, I think.

Right.

So at a dollar fifty per voter, we're gonna be able to send one, maybe two, well designed specifically uh uh distinct from other political mail, physical piece of information directly to the voters, and we'll be able to have various public events.

We'll be able to fully support all of you speaking, we'll be able to occasionally speak with you as well.

That'll let us at that dollar fifty a voter, the majority of what that is buying is mailer and advertising space.

And I'll let Aaron speak to some of the more advertising and marketing size space.

But that $1.50 is sort of the maybe four points of contact with the voter.

One to two in physical and two to three in either digital or ad space.

I'm Aaron Coursey.

Um just to also introduce myself.

I am a creative director, graphic designer.

I'll be working on a lot of the branding, web materials, visuals for the campaign.

Um I think so, standard in terms of ad buy would be both working with KBZK on TV, radio, um digital advertisements.

So things that might show up in the chronicle.

You know, as you're scrolling the chronicle, you might see different sizes of digital ads.

Those are all things that KPZK can help us coordinate.

TV spots can include being on the local news, but it can also include ad spots on YouTube and other platforms like Hulu for voters in the area.

And then in addition to that, meeting voters where they're at on social media, so purchasing ads on Instagram and Facebook from Meta, purchasing ads on TikTok.

There is a lot we can do flexibly within that range.

I think depending on the voter engagement here.

We've had some conversations about this kind of grass tops eventually engagement with the public directly and the physical presence being a really important component of this, especially with the complexity.

I would say the more that we can spend on additional ad space will get people's eyes on this more and more.

You know, people take about five to seven times of seeing something until they've really registered it.

What I would love to do if we were spending more money on voter engagement is essentially have a tiered strategy with marketing.

First phase would be general awareness.

Hey, this is happening for the people who are out of the loop.

And then second phase would be getting into a little bit more of the details.

Here are some things you should be aware of.

Here are the options before you on the ballot.

Giving people those informational pieces when they have the capacity for them, after they've gotten that kind of initial, hey, you should be aware of this.

Phase one.

So I think depending on your level of engagement, we can decide whether or not to phase out an approach.

I definitely think in terms of uh kind of add by.

All that that would be finagling for us is just the percentage of kind of different places that we're putting things, and some of that I think we could determine with stakeholder mapping, figuring out where it's the most valuable to be reaching voters, where we might not be reaching voters through events, and making sure that we're distributing our presence so that we're reaching the widest amount of people possible.

Questions or comments?

Yeah.

Then Deanna.

Thank you all so much for this.

And I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about specific audiences and how the connection between what those who those audiences might be and the types of um ways that you want to reach them.

Absolutely.

You know, I think the uh the place I'd want to start, regardless of the tier of engagement, because I think it can be done with the members of this commission and ourselves for a fairly low cost is with those uh grass tops local organizations.

So all of your neighborhood associations, the League of Women Voters event that Becky mentioned, uh, your Kawanis clubs, your rotary groups, your student clubs, these sort of public places where people congregate together and come together.

There are many of us who have connections to them already.

That's a phone call to a friend, that's an ask of a neighbor.

Can I come speak at your event?

And we can do those.

You know, that's where where our personnel budget is already covered.

We're in for those, and we can do those at a very low cost in partnership with you.

And so I think we do those no matter what the tier of engagement.

I think they're both one of the most effective ways to engage the voters because we know that's where they are.

And I would really lean on uh all of you first and foremost to lean into your specific networks where we have those connections already, where you know, Becky, you mentioned the League of Women Voters up front.

I imagine there are two or three others like that that all of you know, and I'd want to take all of us to uh present and speak to those groups and meet their leaders and meet the citizens that go to them.

So I think that's that's sort of the place where I'd want to start.

But from there, then I'd want to make sure that we are reaching out digitally, both with a geographic focus around the city, but also into uh different pools.

So I want to make sure we're on Instagram to capture some of the younger crowd.

I want to make sure that we're also advertising on Facebook, but also into the newspaper itself.

I think the place we place the advertisements really determines both the general audience that will receive our information and uh those audiences are already built out, right?

These people, we're we're not trying to bring the voters to us.

We want to bring the information to where the voters are.

And so I think that uh that's that's where I'd want to start, and I'd want to build out from there.

And I'd want to make sure that that is as we reach more and more voters, reflective of Bozeman voting pool broadly.

Barb?

Oh, wait, Deanna was next.

He answered uh one of my questions.

I guess um, you know, the the radio um stations and the newspaper that you mentioned, the chronicle, um, all have a um uh a political bias.

And how would how what kind of metric, what kind of um research are you going to do to make sure that you uh reach across all political uh biases with this message?

I think that I'd want to make sure that we are going directly towards the locations where the voters are, right?

So you live here in town and you're telling me the radio and the newspaper have a specific political bent.

If those don't capture the entirety of the Bozeman voter, I'd really rely on you and your expertise to help direct us towards the avenues that do.

I'm looking at this as number of readership, general availability, where these things are out in the community, but the missing pieces are going to be the parts of this community that are both harder to reach but also harder to find.

So I think if members of the commission here have inroads to those groups that are perhaps different than the the standard list or or uh your your biased groups, if you will.

Uh if you've got inroads to those groups, then we'd want to talk to them.

Ultimately, I think, you know, there are there are voters everywhere, but the commonality between all of them is that they come together and they all are consuming their news somewhere.

So I'd want to make sure that we're in all of those places.

Can I add a little bit?

Yeah, please, um I'm not getting paid to go find these people.

That's why you're here.

No, you're right.

Um can I add something before you?

Please.

Okay.

Um thing that I just want to mention about KBZK specifically is that their actual news division is fully separate from their ad by division, which is a way that their business generates revenue.

The way that they place ads is determined by us and essentially like they're an a la carte service.

So if we want ads on YouTube, if we want ads on Hulu, if we want ads on, you know, Disney Plus, if we want ads uh in any of the papers locally, if we want ads digitally across a number of different publications or uh avenues that they have access to, that's something that we have control over.

So and that's something that we can just discuss with you as we work with them.

It's it's not part of their news division.

It is like it's a separate revenue stream for them.

Um so one of the ways that we can make sure that we're um effectively nonpartisan with this is by picking and choosing those a la cart options from them appropriately.

Barb.

And if I could just add one more thing.

Um, while I recognize that we're the ones being paid to find these people.

Ideally, we're working together, and if there are groups you have in mind, I'd really like you to share those connections with us.

It will make our work easier and more effective, thereby making your work easier and more effective.

My groups are very small.

Barb.

And I am no social media expert, so feel free to tell me that I'm not understanding this, but um do I understand social media ad bives correctly that we can pick our universe of who sees them and thereby correct for that perceived political bias of legacy media by targeting more conservative social media consumers.

We can also, you know, we can use that to our advantage when it comes to the messaging between older and younger voters on social.

Um we find that by and large, Facebook has a slightly older demographic than Instagram, but you can within any ad that you create, you can target a specific age range, you can target a specific radius, so uh we can target people within the city of Bozeman, and then we can also target people's different interests or um things that would correlate to different types of voters.

Um, and one of the not only from a nonpartisan lens, uh I think one of the other great things about that is if there is messaging we think will be more effective for an older demographic, the way that we're speaking, um, we can try that out on them.

And uh, you know, I think like I said, repetition is kind of especially at the outset, like I really want to make sure that we're hitting people with this messaging at least five to seven times so that they're getting to absorb it, and I think um, yeah, the different social platforms are great for that.

I think reaching reaching above like uh Gen X voter is sometimes hard on Instagram.

Uh there's more uh baby boomer voters on Facebook.

There's a lot of Gen Z on TikTok, um, but within those, we certainly have the choice to target specific demographics, Becky.

Um a couple of things.

One is um under the personnel costs, it says 150 hours over six months for four people.

We only have four and a half months between now and the end of October, and the vote is November 3rd.

So whatever we're gonna get done, we're gonna get done before then.

Um, with that this document's cool, but I'd love to see we're gonna do this in this in July, this in August, this by September, whatever, this by September, whatever, this by October, whatever, um, so that we know you know what's gonna happen, that kind of thing, and then for the commission's maybe consideration when I look at the active electorate electorate engagement plus the personnel minus maybe a month, then what if we just approve 100,000 dollars since that's how much we have, and then that's our level of engagement.

I'm sorry for getting so practical this late and then, Barb.

Oh, you want to respond to that, Barb?

Yeah, and and kind of build on it.

Um my I think we need to target more toward the active electoral electorate engagement.

This is gonna be a high turnout election.

It's not gonna be a typical municipal election turnout.

It's also gonna be a very noisy election with a lot of people throwing a lot of stuff at the voters, and I think one of our bigger challenges is gonna be um breaking through that so that people vote all the way down to the end of the ballot.

Because my assumption is our stuff is going to be at the very end of the ballot, and so um, so I feel like we need to count on spending a hundred dollar fifty per voter in this and try to hit all of our registered voters.

Um, so that's kind of where I'm at as well in thinking about um let's throw our remaining budget at this and and really go for it.

Mike, so what do you think about my crazy math?

So if if we look at that, can you go back?

Yeah.

So we've got 600 hours because it's six months, but we only have four and a half months.

So my math brain is not working, so let's just say that's fifty thousand dollars, and let's say we got the active electoral engagement at 64,000.

Let's say that's 50,000, and then we have 100,000, so that gets us pretty close.

So to that point, um we've already paid the 60,000.

Okay, then some of it can go back.

Well, when you approved it on consent tonight, so that was the claim for 60,000.

So this number here has already removed that $60,000.

Oh, got you.

Well, then I make a motion to approve the active engagement level for Dan Gill.

There's a motion on the floor.

I'll second it.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any public comment on the motion?

I'm wondering if we were to spend $2 per voter.

What is that bias?

Am I allowed to do that?

No, we have a motion on the floor.

Um if you want to make it as discussion, or you could um, just just wondered what that might mean given the repetition of outreach that I totally agree with and the complexity of this election, which Barbara stated so well.

I I think by way of discussion, and then we'll get to public comment, is there any?

The way I would look at this um we we spend another 100,000, and we asked Danielle to come back to us with how it's gonna be spent and where the money's coming from.

I'm assuming the fact that we paid 60,000 doesn't mean that um we're paying for a month and a half after the election is over in personnel costs.

Um I'm sure that that will get adapted, and um that should give us enough to get um at least into the through the active voter uh and and I think we're all on board that the more we can reach the better that it is.

And um I I'd like us to come up with a plan as soon as we can, and um while we're not being paid to do this, we're also not being paid to do presentations, Deanna.

I think we all have to commit to doing presentations out in the public if we think um that what we end up with is uh a worthy document and we'll make the city a better place uh in as many aspects as we can by virtue of dealing with structure uh and the charter, so um, and I know you didn't mean that.

I hope you know that I didn't mean I know you didn't know okay.

Well, thank you.

Um, but if well I'm not going there.

So I I think the motion should be as it is, and um you all should come back with more of a plan uh at our next meeting, and um we haven't decided when that will be yet, but hang in there for that one.

So just so we're clear, you want us to come up with a plan to spend about sixty-five thousand dollars to engage with the voters directly, correct?

And we'll bring you both a plan and a timeline inside of the weeks in between now and your next meeting.

To a hundred thousand.

I'd like to make them my uh amend my motion.

Can I jump in real quick before you make that amendment?

Pardon me?

Yes, I'd like to so I want to uh proceed with caution here.

Um there's nothing saying that if you do it at the $65,000 level that later when you have a better balanced understanding of where you're at getting towards that election, that you couldn't authorize additional expenditures for later ad buys closer to the election if we if we know there's a specific demographic, if there's a specific platform messaging, anything like that.

I would hesitate to get too close to that budget number, knowing that you still have Caleb's payroll costs, you have additional election costs that that 35,000 is an estimate.

We don't know specifically what our portion is going to be out of a likely three-page ballot.

So printing costs are gonna be higher than a typical ballot.

Um, just we're gonna have multiple initiatives, we're gonna have a lot of offices, so I would say exercise caution and come back later to do additional expenditures rather than pushing too close to the sun, the city commission to your point, Carson adopts their budget next Tuesday.

There's no way for you to get an ask before them in that budget if they don't approve it in the budget, they cannot spend it on ballot education per Montana state law.

They can't budget amendments and amend the budget, not for a not for ballot education.

Mike, can I ask you one more question before I amend my my motion?

When what is the date of our next meeting?

July 15.

July 15.

May I please amend my motion?

Yes.

I would like to make a motion that we uh approve sixty-five thousand dollars for Dangell to put into the budget for the electoral electorate engagement, and that on July 15th, they bring us a clear and sustained schedule along with sample graphics that will be used, which means the postcard, the ads, what the Facebook ads gonna look like, everything.

Yes, ma'am.

That's my motion.

Does the second agree with that as an amendment?

Yes, all right.

Is there any public comment on that amended motion?

Speak now or forever hold your gonna have discussion.

Yeah, then we'll come back to discussion.

Mary Bateson, Bozeman resident, and this isn't exactly about the motion, but it is a question about what is being purchased.

The engage what is the engagement?

I'm assuming, and this may be wrong, that the engagement should be that you're trying to convince the Bozeman voters to vote on it first and to vote for it.

No, no.

Okay, we're spending 65,000 dollars to encourage them to vote.

Just to vote.

And so encourage to vote and educate them as to what's in it.

Okay.

It's a big education process.

And what procedures are there in going to be?

For public comment on the arguments that you will be making.

I mean, because I can see the arguments for and against some of these options, uh, I might not agree with them.

I might want to be able to say that, that I'd like people to hear a certain argument.

Is that something that's going to be part of the process?

You can go to education meetings.

Okay.

That we attend, and you can speak.

Okay.

You can write letters to the editor, you can appear on social media, all the other things.

We won't be meeting that much.

Uh-huh.

And certainly the meetings that we will be having will be coordinating the education process.

Once we've submitted the ballot language and the report, it's done.

It won't get changed.

It won't get changed.

But the engagement, the material used for engagement, will be I guess the reason I'm a little concerned about it is last year going to city commission meeting after city commission meeting and hearing the education about the ward initiative that had to do with water.

That was absolutely not just education, and it wasn't a balanced description, and it felt like uh there was a definite leaning and a band towards one perspective.

And I I think that it's gonna be really important to be able to present the reasoning behind why someone would make the choice of say six versus four commissioners.

What are the advantages?

And that the, you know, you can look at them, look at it in a lot of different ways.

It's very tricky.

It is very tricky, no question about it.

Yeah, we're not the city commission and will not be approaching it the same way, because they have to meet on all sorts of other things all the time.

We're our meetings after we've done the final approval, if we have many, will be on how we coordinating the education process and who can do what.

And so that's that's where that will go.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment on the motion?

Emily Toledo, um, so uh some of you guys know this, but I actually uh Cashman Nursery do a bunch of their marketing, handle all their spring seminar series.

So um recognizing the difficulty of this task of being completely objective.

I got a little bit nervous hearing about how many different community events and all these other things.

In my opinion, for um to be defensible, that it is objective, you need to tighten and control how many different outlets that are sanctioned by the study commission as official education events.

I completely anticipate that there will be neighborhood meetings, there will be all kinds of groups who organize amongst themselves to discuss this topic.

But if you think about this, and I'm maybe because the work I do with Cashman, um election day, voting day is an event, right?

You are inviting everyone who is eligible to attend to that event.

Then there needs to be a, I don't know if it's going to be a web page that has the same exact objective graphics that are reproduced on a postcard with the same objective graphics and explanations that are handed out on flyers or take out a billboard at the off-ramps and on ramps on the interstate.

Um but this kind of idea, and then also when we were talking about building audiences, you would need to produce that information as well because if there's an argument to be made that you targeted one audience, but not another, that's a problem.

So I think you need to have a cover your basis of point of this isn't a campaign in that sense.

Um it is an invitation.

So we want everyone who receives an invitation, whether it's through the mail because they saw an ad to go to centralized places with uniform objective information because this needs to be defensible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Natsuki Nakamura Bozeman resident, um, member of the economic vitality board not speaking on that behalf.

Um, I guess I'm kind of surprised that there's not more detail in this.

I guess we'll I'll wait till the July 15th meeting to get more detail on the how.

Um, for example, I think the city has said like mailing something to each voter or each resident of the city can cost somewhere around 20,000.

You could probably do it a little bit cheaper, but like if there's a plan to mail every single resident, that could be a very significant cost if your plan is to only mail to people who voted last election, then it would obviously be cheaper.

But I guess I think having some clarity about if you're only targeting somewhere between 14 to 40,000 voters.

Are you prioritizing people who voted in the last election, the last two elections?

How are you gonna, or are you just putting it out equally in social media and hoping that you'll get fourteen thousand views, not necessarily knowing that they're frequent voters or regular voters.

Most people who do voter engagement, they you know buy voter records in order to be able to access who's voted in the last two, three elections to know who the consistent voters are.

So that would have to probably be in the budget as well and and laid out and how what you're gonna prioritize for mailing and other outreach.

Um so hopefully some of that detail will come in the July um 15th, and then just to echo some of Mary's questions.

Um I think it's really really important to have plain language.

I think we can see tonight it was very there's a lot of confusion.

So I hope July 15th will have some time to workshop some of the linguists to have it really clear, have some diagrams, as was suggested earlier this evening, and laying out some of the pros-cons of all of them, but very clear that you have to vote for the first one for even the sub-options to be considered.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Um, do you want to respond?

I just I wanted to add a little bit of context that uh this is from our original proposal to the study commission, and on the request of the study commission, we presented our personnel budget first that was approved unanimously this evening, and we're now discussing the tiers of engagement of actually meeting the voter for the first time since our contract's been signed.

Good.

And then let me add that um there's a certain amount of things that we can't do till we have the final thing, but amongst other things, have we decided when would we decide whether there's gonna be a minority report?

That will make a difference and in all that we're doing.

So in my mind, we're still at the let's get information, uh, who can uh get the sunrise votary?

That's me, to have speakers, who can get the League of Women Voters, and in a lot more detail.

How do we set up and attract people to neighborhood association meetings?

Um story under the stars when that happens.

Shouldn't we be out there?

Yes, sweet pea.

That's gonna be a tight one.

How do we go about doing that?

But that's the stage we're at at this point, and it will evolve and um the materials, you can mock up some materials, but you can't finalize it till we're finalized.

I'm sorry.

We know we have drafts and nothing else, but because we know the timeline you're on.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah, let's discuss.

Is there any other public comments?

No.

Public comment.

Not in mind.

Right, back for here for discussion.

Discussion of the motion.

Would you repeat the motion?

Uh pardon me?

Would you repeat the motion?

The motion was to approve sixty-five thousand dollars in the active electorate engagement section for Dangeld to uh spend and to be coming and to come to our July 15 meeting with a very clear and specific schedule of engagement that includes marketing materials that will be used, and also, you know, just all the different pieces for that.

So very specific, because after that we're gonna rock and roll.

Yes, ma'am.

Well, no, it doesn't.

I mean, what would this 65k was the maximum that we have, and we've just uh determined that there are all kinds of um possibilities.

I don't think that we should approve any money in this at this time.

I think we need to see what they can do, and then I think we need to get uh some kind of uh uh an agreement.

Uh it seems to me we've overpaid for the um uh personnel since it's only going to be four months, not six months.

And there's a lot of um a lot of uh ifs and uncertainty that aren't before us, and I don't think we should put any money into an uh uh a motion at this point.

Jen, you and it's yeah, I I think um we obviously need a lot more information to fill in what we've heard, and I've certainly had a chance to interact with you all.

So I'm feeling pretty comfortable um and excited about it, but I do understand we really need a plan of action, as is Barb uh, sorry, as Becky has said, um, but I would add one other um detail that based on your um metrics of a 2025 municipal general election, this will be a major gen uh national election.

So I would hope that we would alter that to reflect that you're looking at the figures from the 2024 election, because that would be the closest one in terms of the numericals and the breadth and depth of what would be on the ballot.

So I would just alter that right away and then see where that falls into those numbers.

But we are.

I agree.

And I would add that we haven't overpaid anything, we've bought 600 hours of personnel costs, um, and that's what we will get.

Um, and just because it had six months in there doesn't mean we're not going to get those hours.

That's what the pricing breakdown is if you read it carefully.

Okay.

Um is there any other uh discussion about the motion?

Because I think it's money well spent and it will evolve as we go along.

We're not spending the money and saying that's it.

Um there is a plan and the money that's allocated will either get spent or it won't, depending on what happens next.

But I'm hoping and thinking we probably need to spend all of it if the public is to be thoroughly educated uh on this uh item that we're putting in front of them, which is in my mind significant and um represents a huge step forward for the city of Bozeman in terms of how it works with public engagement and how it um attracts its um commissioners, mayors, and and the leadership that comes from the electorate.

I think both are really important aspects of this.

So it's in my mind it's money well spent.

Deanna.

Okay, I think that we're being very reckless here.

Um we actually uh haven't spent sixty thousand of the one thirty-five.

Oh it's done.

Isn't that uh uh so the one the one thirty-five balances after the sixty thousand dollars was approved tonight?

It's after that's correct.

Oh okay.

Um all right.

Even so, uh I I think that the assumption that uh they gave us uh an estimate for a personnel for six months um that they're going to double up their work and do it all in four months.

I I I think we we need to have that clarified.

No, it is a hours at $100 an hour, okay.

Okay, it's been allocated, and if they don't do 600 hours of work, we won't pay for it.

Respectfully, we have a signed contract with you regarding our personnel costs.

Right, and and you've you've approved them this evening.

I'm sorry, you we have a signed contract.

I'm reasonably confident we can visit the terms of the contract we've signed if there's discrepancy or concern.

Is that is that unreasonable?

The mic am I wrong about that?

It's not reasonable to me, and I and this is no reflection on your your uh integrity, but it makes no sense to me that we get an estimate of 600 hours for over six months, which is a hundred hours a month uh among um uh three people.

Four, four, PD.

If you'll read through our proposal again, you'll see that for one, we started in May, assuming a quicker term or turnaround from this body, and two, we extend our time out through December to account for any aftermath and follow-up following the election.

We accounted for seven months, and our estimate there is an estimate of our labor.

The yeah, go ahead.

I would also add that um the work, I think in this case has been condensed but not lessened uh when it comes to creating the brand, um, modifying the website, developing ad materials, um, doing ad buys, helping with community events.

Uh we were anticipating all of these as aspects of the hours that we set aside.

That work will still be done, um, and we will do it faster.

Yeah, it should be noted.

There's a motion on the table.

It does require if they're gonna come back on the 15th with a report, it requires us to do our homework, so that um, and I don't know when you would like that information back from us at your earliest convenience.

I'm sorry, your earliest convenience, please.

Soon.

Yeah, at your earliest convenience.

And how do we get it to you?

We send it to Mike, and Mike sends it to you.

You can send it to Mike, you can send it to us via email.

We've had discussions over email already and remote meetings.

Uh, the majority of the information there is looking for your current contacts, what may already be scheduled that we may not have on our radar that we can plug into, uh, and then just checking through your own personal lists and contacts.

I mean, really, my per your request, the list of homework there is encouraging the study commission to take the information you've brought to these public meetings out into your own networks and circles uh and help set the stage for connecting us and yourselves to them as soon as we have the information to do so.

Great.

Aaron.

I'd like to just ask a technical question, which is uh if we are to present a budget spreadsheet and a presentation with brand materials at the next meeting.

How much in advance of that meeting would you like us to send it to you in order to thoroughly review it?

We would need it uh no later than Friday the 11th.

Friday the 11th, or is that the 12th?

Friday the 10th.

Yeah, whatever that is no one can the Friday prior to the next meeting, Friday the 10th.

Yeah, Friday the 10th.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And you can send those directly to me.

Okay, I I would just ask with a homework assignment.

Um, if you have um that fit into your program, um sorry, brain dead.

Um, but in other words, as you're as you're putting forward your timeline, if you can fit some of these in.

I know you've got the first couple right away, but others may be coming in a little bit later.

For me, it would really be helpful to not feel I have to do everything in the next three days.

Should we take the vote?

All right, we have to vote on the motion.

I'm sorry, Deanna.

I do have a question about the homework, but uh we can take that up later.

All right, let's vote on the motion for the discussion on the motion, seeing that all those in favor so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Abstain.

Motion carries four with one abstention.

Okay, motion passes now.

Any other questions of uh the Dangel people before we talk about our next meetings?

And what we need to do with the information that we got tonight.

I have a question about item three.

Yes, ma'am, the homework.

Can you please uh uh explain how you are giving that to us as homework?

Carson, is the what is the uh basis of that?

So Carson requested that I put some documentation together to give some homework to the study commission to help in the public outreach process.

Based on the meetings I've watched and the comments I've seen, I think it would behoove this committee to revisit some of those amendments uh by laws in your meeting agreements.

For example, I've seen you discuss unseconded motion dids for over 20 minutes.

The mayor came to discuss with you.

I think there's a lot of room for ensuring that the provisions that this body governs itself by are being followed before we go out and present it formally to the public with its conclusions.

How many people on the commission have you spoken to?

Four.

Uh five now this evening.

I guess the only ones I've had a length.

Jan and Carson.

So I've watched Becky.

Uh apart from meeting everyone this evening, no.

Uh I had one meeting with Jan and Carson, and I've watched your meetings back through March.

I spent this past weekend reading the entirety of the public comment for the year ahead, for the year behind rather, uh, and watched your past six meetings.

So I'm not basing this on anyone else's discussion point.

I'm basing this on my own review of your publicly available information.

Carson asked me to provide both homework and my recommendations, these are them.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

One more.

Um, I'm wondering where um if we become a speaker's bureau, we talked about the fact that we would want to have a outline so that we would all be you know uh bringing the same message, being able to follow the consistency we've already heard in public comment, the concerns that you know we we need to be really both on task in terms of what a ballot education is and also what the key talking points are that um ballot that we all need to follow for ballot education.

So I'm wondering if that's something you're gonna be adding in to the plan when you bring it next time, or it's just something we ought to be cognizant of, as we're you know, looking at rereading bylaws and stuff.

If you'll look at the first two pages of the packet I gave you, you'll see that it is a rough outline for speaking.

No, quite alright, quite alright.

Um, and and I would again I put draft up at the top of this, but I would reinforce that this is a draft already.

There's two or three pieces of this based on tonight's comments that I would work in.

Um I've sent a PDF to the email addresses I have.

If I could get everyone's email addresses, I'll happily share digital versions of both of these documents.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Gov review at Bozeman.net.

Say again, gov review at Bozeman.net.

Perfect.

In the um talking about how we move forward with this, I do think we need a session with Greg that talks about the difference between education and advocacy, so we're all as clear as we can be on that.

Um he's well versed in it, and he's been through a bunch of these campaigns, so I think that would serve us well.

Now we're kind of moving into next meetings on the agenda.

Uh so if we can uh let Tor and Aaron go, thank you very much for attending.

And for your work, happy to speak to you guys afterwards.

Please.

Thank you all very much.

Excited to work on these materials.

Okay.

Next time on the agenda is I believe future meetings.

If I can find my copy of the agenda.

So our next few meetings are the 15th of July, I think the 30th of July.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

So again, the 15th and what?

Okay.

15 and 30.

And then the ballot is due August 6th calendar.

Well, we have to finalize it August 6th.

It's due August 8.

Yeah, that's right.

That's right.

That's right.

So I'm sorry, what do we have on the schedule?

July 15, July 30.

Okay.

The next two meetings.

I think we need either now, and I sense people don't want to keep going.

I'm out of some form of a summary from us as to what we heard in this meeting and where we think the points are that need to be further refined.

And uh I have uh a list of about three or four.

Some are consequential, some are less consequential.

I do too.

Can I suggest we take the same approach we did for the April 25?

Each of you produce your what I heard, send them to me.

I consolidate it into one document.

Love it.

Will we have time to make the necessary corrections with the meeting schedule as is?

That's that's my only question.

Deanna.

Well, I uh I think we need to schedule another meeting.

And I I think we have an abundance of uh public comment, and also I think that we should maybe take the time to um invite uh Gallatin Valley Sentinel to present their uh data.

It can't be um it can't be disregarded.

Um if we could get them our data as well quickly, so that we could really get the best possible feedback that we can get from the community.

Uh, I think that would be uh I I think that would be an important thing to do.

But that aside, I think we have uh way too much work to do to expect that we can get it done in just two more meetings.

Three.

1530 and August 6.

But August, you think August 6th uh we could still be uh doing uh corrections, Becky?

I don't have my thing with me.

I think we might when do we have to have the final final charter?

We have to have the ballot, the language.

You have to finally approve everything on August 6th.

Final adoption of the city commission report on August 6th, and the ballot language is due to the county on August 10.

Okay.

Um so that that gives us the opportunity to have um Friday and Monday to get the report signed.

Okay, and get it to the county.

Okay, they have to have it on Monday the 10th by the close of business.

So I'm I'm thinking that if we do the summary, and part of that summary of this meeting and the written um information that we've got and just what we hear out in the community, we ought to at the end of that list each of us the areas where we think we need more attention, um, and um so that the drafters come to the meeting on the 15th, knowing generally what people think are the areas of it that need a little more attention.

So we bring the next version on the 15th.

That's what you're saying.

I uh no, I think you come prepared.

You know, we we come prepared to talk about what needs to change in on the 15th, and then if we need another meeting before the 30th, so be it.

Okay, but um, at least we have a sense as soon as we have the chance to do this outline and of where we are in terms of taking areas of attention.

I have about four.

Most of them are very straightforward, um, not that complicated.

Two of them in my mind um need more attention, maybe three of them.

Um, and you know, the resources are out there, for instance, if we wanted to come up with a plan for redistricting or changing the wards if it gets passed.

Um there are other ways to do it than what was suggested by the MSU local government, but maybe we think that's all right.

Um, clear to me, and now I'm doing this.

Uh thank you for indulging it.

The compensation of commissioners and the compensation board needs a little more work and clarity.

Um, best I can tell people don't understand what was meant by it, but that's a suggestion that it's not very clear at all.

And that's a sensitive topic.

I hear that from people, so we better get that right.

Um, and um and then the the sub-option, sub option language just needs a little more work to make it clearer.

The rest is pretty straightforward, and I think we all agree on um the merit succession stuff that we talked about, but I don't see anything else, and I also distinctly do not want us to take up issues that we all agree upon and that weren't touched by public comment.

And I will also say that I have already started the typo exercise with the amended charter and intend to just go in and make those because there's still inconsistency, and when we capitalize things, and so I'm just gonna go do that before the 15th.

And if you see typos that you're not sure of, I'm gonna catch then send them to me.

Sure, Becky.

Um, I I'm following the same uh ideas that you are, Carson.

I want to address some of the really good ideas that came out of this meeting today.

I want to address some of the uh legal aspects that Greg, our attorney is going to bring to us.

I have zero bandwidth to go back and rediscuss everything we put in the charter.

I think we've done that, and it's too late in the game.

I I can um appreciate all data that is sent to us on email.

I can appreciate all public comment that comes to us on email and uh things from the Sentinel follow up right in that line.

It's public comment, and I appreciate they can send it to us and sooner than later because we're already way ahead of the game, and so it's just it's it's public comment.

Please send it.

I'll look at it, absolutely.

I read all the public comment, and that's about my bandwidth right now.

So I like your your schedule that we send all of our comments to Mike, he compiles them.

Barb starts looking at all the the um uh grammatical edits um and just takes care of those.

We decide on the final language when we come on the 15th, we make those edits, we get the stuff from Greg, we do the final look on the 30th, and then we do the final approval on the 6th as scheduled.

And the vote will be on the 6th.

That's correct.

So, just on that schedule, the July 30.

There's no hard out.

So I think we just strap in and spend the time.

I think you answered my question because the meeting on the 15th will be the two-hour with a hard stop, right?

Thank you.

And I agree with Carson and Becky.

I don't need to repeat all of that, but I feel like we're on the same page.

Well, I would still like to make a motion that we add another meeting to be certain that we aren't pushing through.

And Becky, I appreciate your desire to push this thing through to a conclusion, and I know it's been a lot of work, uh, but we have we still have a lot of work to do, and and uh the public comment that we received tonight, and in um the written comment, uh is it can't be rushed.

And uh we have, you know, right now that our next meeting is three weeks away, and I believe that uh we could find a date that we could uh begin the process to make sure that we have plenty of time to do the work that it yet remains, and we'd all like to say that uh it's minor changes here and there, um, and you don't want to hear anymore, but but the people gave us more to think about, and we need to give it its due and think about it, and uh consider some of these uh well-made points.

So I see no reason why this commission cannot find a day within the next three weeks that we could begin the process of processing the final public comments that we've received, so I move that we find a date.

What do people think?

I'm happy to meet earlier if I'm able to do it, and if there's a point and a purpose to it.

I don't want to come and have things not done.

For instance, I want to reinstate um the portion that we took out of the financial thing, um, the sentence that allowed the commission to override on the audit thing.

We took it out, and Deanna had the responsibility for talking to uh finance about it, and she didn't do it.

So I want to back in and then we can talk about whether we take it out.

I think I made the point that we we could take it up at our next meeting.

It's a minor point.

Okay.

Do we want to look at these?

So if you add it on the 24th of June.

I just need to say I planned around this calendar.

I won't be available at all in those three weeks, but I can certainly be available starting the 13th of July for a second meeting that week, but I will also recognize that I won't be able to participate in whatever is decided before then.

Okay.

That's okay.

I can't meet on the 24th.

I can meet on the 25th.

The room is not available on the 24th.

Yay.

What about the 25th?

I am not available.

Unless do we have a second for the motion?

Oh yeah.

Thank you for that.

Is there a second for the motion?

To do what?

Find a time for another meeting.

I mean, I'm willing to look, but I don't like we we originally did have a meeting scheduled for July 2nd, and we canceled it because of the 4th of July week.

I don't know why, I don't remember why we didn't just move it to the week of the 6th.

But if we want to look at the week of the 6th, that is an option in cardiac.

I'm gonna second the motion for the sake of discussion, and the discussion should be can we find another time?

What about July 9th?

Inner neighborhood council.

Mike, why don't you say what days are available?

Friday the 10th.

I won't be available, but the room is.

That's a good day.

What date?

Friday.

Friday to 10th.

Well, I can't read my damn calendar.

S and C, who are they?

Stormy and Kassai and my granddaughters are gonna be here.

I will be um out of the country starting the 27th of June through the 22nd of July.

I will try to attend remotely, but I can't promise.

So you're not gonna be here for the 15th or the 26th.

I'll be here the 26th.

Why by the 26th?

There's nothing on the 26th.

Yeah, I will make 26th of the Sunday.

If you don't mind my granddaughters coming to a public meeting and watching, um I can make a meeting on Friday the 10th.

It depends for me, it depends on when.

I mean, I have to work that day, so it it depends on when during that day I have to work.

I'm willing to do it that after that evening, just in case Monday the 13th is a date for people.

I will be back then.

Monday the 13th works for me.

Does it work for the room?

Mike.

Monday the 13th, the room is open.

And then so that week we would meet on the 13th and on the 16th, 15th.

Wednesday the 15th.

I'd rather do that.

They're close in time, but um, both of those would have to be published Thursday the 9th.

Well, the 13th would need to be published Thursday the 9th.

13th is fine by me.

I I have a work thing in Alder, so I don't know exactly when I'm gonna be back, but if I'm not here, that's fine.

Other people can so can we do the 13th at 5 p.m.?

The 13th at 5 p.m.

Is that what you I'm saying?

Yeah, um that's a question.

I can try.

I'm trying to give you as much space as you can to get.

And if you don't, if you can't make it, Jana, are you back?

Oh yeah.

So we would have a quorum, but uh the a quorum without either you or Becky is useless.

No, it isn't.

There's email, there are summaries, there are reports that are so could we meet.

Just so I'm clear.

What would be accomplished on the meeting the 13th?

It would be to begin discussion about in my mind.

There are like three areas where changes that we might have differences about would need to get made, and maybe not.

Maybe it would all come together um well, and then there's about three or four other areas that I think we agree upon, um, that are more typo typographical or formatting, um, and um someone needs to say this needs to be done.

Barbara's doing that.

Well, but there's what I see, and what Barb sees and what the public saw, um, but we haven't technically even agreed that the three areas of concern are the compensation section, the sub-option section, and um, whether we want to um delve into how you uh draw the wards in a way that's not ending up with gerrymandering.

Um, that's what we've got right now, but I'm gonna suggest that we just that we meet on the 15th and see how far we get and we add a meeting between the 15th and the 30th.

Yeah, is there a time between the 15th and the 30th?

And I apologize, but I have to go.

You have to leave the meeting or go to the bathroom.

You sound a little contrite.

So I apologize, but I yeah, not just not feeling.

Can we settle on step away?

I think that's the better course of action.

Meet on the 16th at a meeting if we need one.

Okay, but we we need to meet we need to be sure that that's possible.

We can't we can't um walk away from here assuming that we will have a meeting room and then uh, do we have a meeting room on um the 16th?

Yes, we've already scheduled it.

Wednesday the 15th.

What?

Yeah, we have it, and then Thursday the 16th would be available.

For how long?

There's there's nothing scheduled in here that evening.

So not the so why don't we reserve the Thursday the 16th as a possible meeting?

What about the week of the 20th?

Is there anything?

What's available then?

Friday the 24th, or 4 to 6 on the 23rd, and Friday is open?

Correct.

We don't have any regular scheduled meetings on Friday evenings.

I can't do that Friday.

I could do the 23rd from 4 to 6.

So why don't we reserve, if we could, the space so we don't run out of space on the 23rd, and we'll go ahead and meet on the 15th.

So just summarize, we have a meeting on the 15th, and now on the 23rd, plus, of course, the 30th and the 6th of August.

We have a meeting on the 15th.

We have time reserved for us if we need it and want it on the 23rd, and we meet for sure on the 30th and the 6th.

Does that work for everybody?

Deanna, do you want to vote on your motion?

Do I want to what vote on?

The motion, which was to find a time?

Of course I want to vote.

Question.

All right.

All in favor of trying to find a time for another meeting, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries 4-0.

And so the meeting uh So the we have a meeting on the 15th.

That's our next meeting.

We have space scheduled for the 23rd if we need it.

We have a meeting on the 30th.

We have a meeting on the sixth.

Okay.

Thanks, everybody.

This meeting is adjourned at nine at 8 55.

Oh my goodness.